Road Accidents Involving Police Vehicles

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured in road accidents involving police vehicles in England and Wales.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the police have to strike a balance between responding promptly to emergencies and apprehending offenders, and ensuring the safety of the public.
	Last month the Association of Chief Police Officers launched new guidance for the management of pursuits, and we welcome this. It is designed to help to ensure that pursuits can be resolved quickly and safely for everyone involved. The guidance fully recognises that there may be occasions when it is better to discontinue a pursuit on the grounds of public safety.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. He will be aware from a Written Answer that I received on 15 March that in the past five years 90 people have been killed and 765 injured in these accidents. Does he agree that possibly the more serious concern is the difference between the records of different police forces? For example, in Thames Valley three people were killed and 14 were seriously injured in the five-year period whereas in South Wales the figure was nil. Does my noble friend agree that the best practice that is clearly undertaken by some police forces should be spread nationwide as quickly as possible?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are very many reasons for differences in the accident rates of different police forces. I, of course, agree with and acknowledge the point that my noble friend makes about the spread of good practice across the country. For that reason we very much welcome ACPO's recent publication which we hope will further raise standards in this area. It is worth adding that there has been a very welcome decline in the number of deaths and injuries resulting from pursuits and emergency responses. In the year before last fatalities were down 8 per cent, serious injuries were down 37 per cent and slight injuries were down 36 per cent; so there are improvements. Clearly, the ACPO guidance will help the police service nationally to build on that and develop it further.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that for the victims and families of people involved in such accidents the fact that the police are attending an emergency is of very little consolation? What are the procedures for investigating the causes of these accidents? That is not, and should not be, done in the spirit of a witch-hunt, but should be carried out in order to ensure that where compensation is an issue it is awarded as quickly as possible and that the reasons for such accidents are investigated thoroughly and can be put right.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, following an incident of this kind there is a proper procedure for investigation. When a police vehicle is involved in a fatal road traffic accident the force will voluntarily refer the matter to the Police Complaints Authority, now the Independent Police Complaints Authority, and a full investigation will be undertaken. It is usually the expectation that an experienced traffic investigator, normally from another force, will be part of the investigation team and a report is then sent to the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether any personnel from the police service should be prosecuted. Of course, a report is made to Her Majesty's Coroner who will hold a public inquest, so there is a very full and thorough procedure. But of course the noble Baroness is right; nothing can put back what has been done and it is very tragic when people die as a result of these dangerous pursuits.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, are there not real difficulties in determining the cause of these accidents? Are the Government prepared to give consideration to the introduction of no-fault liability along the lines advocated in the Pearson report that was published some time ago?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not think that we would want necessarily to go along that course. It is important that the police have full opportunity to undertake a pursuit where public safety is threatened and where a serious crime is perhaps being investigated or where the police are endeavouring to get to an emergency in very difficult circumstances. I certainly understand the point that the noble Lord makes but I think that we have to be very careful in pursuing that particular course.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is essential that the ACPO guidelines to which he referred in his first Answer are adopted and implemented by all forces and that they should have the effect of rules which all police forces must follow? Does he also agree that when police pursuits take place, only the most highly trained police drivers should be involved and that the pursuit should be controlled by a senior officer in a control centre who can, if necessary, call off the pursuit if the danger to the public increases?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with regard to the first point, ACPO published guidance in full consultation with the Police Complaints Authority following its investigation of serious road traffic incidents involving fatal pursuit. It is expected that that guidance will be adhered to and, of course, the control and command centre will want to be in continual contact with the police officers involved in the pursuit. By its very nature, a pursuit involves a fast-changing set of circumstances, and it will be understood that police officers must have a degree of operational freedom in making a judgment about what they see in front of them when pursuing another vehicle.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, in how many cases does the police authority admit liability on a civil basis, or do all cases have to go to court for civil liability to be determined?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware that figures relating to civil liability are kept by police authorities. However, I shall investigate that point and write to the noble and learned Lord.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, if the noble Lord has the statistics before him, can he tell us how many accidents have as their root cause poor maintenance? Further, can he tell us whether there has been any evidence of a drop in the standard of maintenance of police vehicles where PFIs have been put in place and where maintenance is contracted out rather than carried out in-house?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the statistics are detailed but they do not have the level of detail which the noble Viscount seeks. I am not aware of any particular problems relating to the standard of care and maintenance of police vehicles, which remains very high. I am certainly not aware of any difficulties arising from those services being subject to outside or external contracts through the PFI route.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has the noble Lord taken into account the comments and suggestions made in the debate that I initiated on this subject, particularly with regard to false alarms which cause police cars to be driven at great speed through red traffic lights? I think that the situation has greatly improved since then, but I hope that the noble Lord has taken account of that debate.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that we will have taken very careful account of what the noble Lord said during that debate. I am drawn to agree with him that there has been much reflection on this very serious issue. For that reason, I was delighted to be able to report that there has been a significant reduction in the number of fatalities, serious injuries and slight injuries over the past few years. With the ACPO guidance in place, we want to see that improvement continue.

Royal Mail: Redundancies

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What discussions Royal Mail has had with them in relation to compulsory redundancies of managerial staff.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, decisions on whether to introduce compulsory redundancies for managerial staff are a matter for the Royal Mail board. Royal Mail's intention is to achieve managerial job reductions through voluntary redundancy and natural turnover of staff wherever possible, but the company cannot rule out the possibility of compulsory redundancies. This has been the company's position for some years and it remains unchanged. Officials have been briefed by Royal Mail about the impact of the company's change programme on the number of people employed in Royal Mail, but Ministers have not had discussions with Royal Mail about compulsory redundancies.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that there is a job security agreement with Amicus/CMA that there will be no compulsory redundancies? That has been publicly stated by Royal Mail, yet, at the same time, in secret documents the company is stating that it is seeking compulsory redundancies. Surely that is bad for industrial relations and not the kind of behaviour that one expects from a public company.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I reiterate what I said. So far as I am aware, no decisions have been taken to have compulsory redundancies but, simply, that has not been ruled out for the future.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, demonstrates the lack of clarity in people's minds about the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and Royal Mail? Does he also accept that there is at least a suspicion, as we have often heard in this House, that, when there is bad news concerning Royal Mail, the Government say that it is nothing to do with them but, when it is good news, it is to do with them?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I explained to the noble Lord on the previous occasion that this issue was raised, there is no lack of clarity. The lack of clarity lies with the noble Lord, who refuses to accept that we have continually said that we regard these issues to be a matter for Royal Mail and not the Government. I reiterate that point in case there is a lack of clarity on those Benches.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Royal Mail proposes to invite managers to renew their opt-out from the 48-hour weekly ceiling set out in the working time regulations and that, at the same time that it is seeking to get managers to work more than 48 hours a week, it is threatening redundancies? Is that not inconsistent and unacceptable?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that that is exactly why one has to leave such decisions to the management of Royal Mail. It is simply not possible to determine which managers or which posts we are talking about and whether, indeed, it makes sense to have redundancies in those circumstances. We believe that that is for the Royal Mail board to determine, and we are content to leave it to the board to do that within the parameters that we give them.

Pakistan: Nuclear Technology Transfer

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they propose to take in response to the selling of military nuclear technology by Pakistani officials to certain states.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have discussed this matter in some detail with the Government of Pakistan, who are continuing their investigations into the issue of the transfer of nuclear technology to other states. They have undertaken to let Her Majesty's Government know the outcome of their investigations. Any specific action taken against individuals involved is a matter for the Government of Pakistan to pursue.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can she explain how it is that we are prepared to invade Iraq in the name of keeping WMD out of the wrong hands yet meanwhile General Musharraf has allowed his cronies to sell nuclear technology to none other than North Korea, Iran and Libya? Is it not the case that he has not punished them and has not confiscated their financial gain? Is it really sufficient just to say, "Don't do it again. Tell us where this technology has gone and that is the end of the matter"?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are quite a lot of questions there. As the noble Lord knows, we took action in Iraq because of Iraq's continued defiance of the international community in relation to the mandatory UN Security Council resolutions which had been passed; in particular, Security Council Resolution 1441 made that clear in relation to Resolutions 678 and 687.
	The noble Lord used somewhat inflammatory language. I do not think that there is any proof that General Musharraf allowed those things to happen. He says that he was in ignorance of what was going on. AQ Khan has also said that the Government were in ignorance of what was going on. The important point is that so far the pardon has been in relation to the declaration made by AQ Khan about the countries to which sales were made. There is no declaration that such a pardon would be extended if other information turned up as a result of the investigations now in progress.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House within primarily which multilateral framework we are pursuing the lessons of this? After all, there were Malaysian links and Gulf States links, and a number of European companies were selling dual-use technology without being clear about its end use. If it is a matter of tightening EU export controls on dual use technology, how actively is that being pursued within the IAEA?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord asked within which multilateral fora we are pursuing this issue. We must first look at the results of the investigations. We know that a network of businessmen in commercial centres ranging from south Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and the Far East was involved. The investigation being pursued in Pakistan is therefore very broadly based.
	It is important to remind ourselves that the discovery came about because of critical engagement between this country—and, indeed, others—and Iran and Libya. That enabled the IAEA to go into those countries, to carry out investigations, to see the extent of their nuclear capability and to refer back to Pakistan. The point is that it is such critical engagement with countries that might have WMD that allows the IAEA to go into those countries. That is of vital importance in pursuing these issues.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that since the publication in 1945 by the American Government of the Smyth report entitled Atomic Energy for Military Purposes, the methods of making nuclear weapons have been well known? The technical problems of making a nuclear weapon which detonates at the right time in the right place are immense. There are probably only six countries in the world with a safe and reliable nuclear weapon capability, and Pakistan is not among them.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not claim to have that detailed knowledge of the technology of nuclear weapons. This is not just a question of the means of creating and exploding a device but a question of the means of delivery. The noble Lord will recall another issue in relation to the Iraqi question to which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred; that is, missile technology. The issue here is about knowledge and capability which was stolen from Urenco in the 1970s and the way in which AQ Khan has now said that he sold on that information specifically to North Korea, Libya and Iran.
	I cannot say whether the noble Lord is right in his surmise about there being only six countries in the world with this capability. I am sure we all hope that he is right, but the issue here is to get as many countries as possible to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty. That is the means by which this Government are pursuing this issue and by which we believe other governments of good will across the world should do the same.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, when were UK Ministers first aware of the open marketing by Mr Khan of nuclear technologies as outlined in the recent Jane's Defence Weekly report?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, when I was preparing for this Question, I said to officials, "I bet that someone will ask me when Ministers were first aware". I cannot answer that because I do not know. However, on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House there has been discussion about the way in which nuclear knowledge may or may not have been passed from one country to another. What is revealed here is a very specific and clear indication from AQ Khan that that began in 1970. However, even if I did know the answer to the question asked by the noble Earl, I rather doubt that I would be willing to give it in an open forum such as this. Doing so might well prejudice the intelligence operation of this country.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, pursuant to the second answer given to my noble friend Lord Lamont, is the Minister aware that the Government have accepted and published the Cory report on events in Northern Ireland and that Judge Cory in the course of those reports took the view that senior officers who had in his view been inactive were guilty of collusion in the security forces' accusations and crimes, and yet those senior officers were not interviewed? Does the Minister think that that marches well with her answer to my noble friend about President Musharraf?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the question of how General Musharraf decided to deal with this issue is a matter for him as the President of Pakistan dealing with a very particular issue which has arisen in relation to Pakistan. The noble Lord may well wish to pursue his concerns about the Cory report, and I am sure that in your Lordships' House he has ample opportunity to do so. However, I remind him that this specific Question deals with issues which have arisen in Pakistan.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, can my noble friend perhaps take us back a little? We seem to be making all sorts of deductions. However, is not the most important deduction to be made the fact that had this Government not been having positive dialogue bilaterally with Libya and multilaterally with Iran, we would not have received all the information which has led to the present dialogue with Pakistan? When can we look forward to a similar initiative being taken with North Korea so that we can get rid of the third part of what was once called the "axis of evil"?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Tomlinson. I have a touching faith in your Lordships' House. I had hoped, obviously somewhat forlornly, that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would recognise that it is because of Her Majesty's Government's policy of critical engagement with Iran and Libya that we were enabled to see the IAEA going into both countries and undertaking the necessary inspections which led to the unmasking of the activities of AQ Khan.
	Her Majesty's Government, along with other governments, have been the means of achieving a considerable breakthrough in this respect. I, for my part, want to pursue this policy of critical engagement. As a Minister with responsibility for non-proliferation, I think that we have been able to get a great deal further through this policy than through some of the other policies that have been pursued in the past.

Allotments

Baroness Sharples: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many allotments have been sold by local authorities since 1996.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, our records show that a total of 167 statutory allotments have been sold by local authorities since 1996. We have no information on disposals of non-statutory allotments.
	In response to a recommendation from the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has commissioned an update of the English Allotments Survey as part of work to develop a national database of urban green spaces. That will provide up-to-date figures on the current state of allotments, the trends in their disposal and whether there is adequate provision.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can he say how many allotments have been sold for development, possibly against the wishes of allotment holders because the alternative sites they were offered were not suitable?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. I cannot give a precise answer to that. Disposing of a statutory allotment is not easy. First, as regards the Secretary of State, a set of criteria has to show that the allotment in question is not necessary and is surplus to requirements. Adequate provision must be made for displaced plot holders unless such provision is not necessary or is impractical and the number of people on the waiting list has been taken into account. So I cannot say what has happened to those allotments that have been disposed of, but they would not necessarily have been sold for development. If they have been disposed of for development local authorities would not necessarily have taken away the plot holders' choice to use an allotment because an alternative probably would have had to be provided. I regret that I cannot answer the specific question the noble Baroness has asked. Of course, non-statutory allotments could well have been disposed of for development purposes.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, some noble Lords on this side of the House are rather disappointed by my noble friend's Answer. Does he not appreciate that in view of the value to the environment and the benefit of exercise outdoors for people of all ages—but perhaps the middle-aged and the elderly in particular—local authorities should be encouraged to increase the number of spaces available for allotments, rather than to sell them off?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. I am sorry that my Answer disappointed him. The rate of loss of plots has dramatically decreased; for example, in 1978 there were 479,000 actual plots and in 1996 there were 296,000. That shows—and I do not want to be too party political about this—that during the 18 years of the previous government, 200 allotment plots were lost every single week. That is a very substantial number.
	My noble friend is quite right about the benefits to health. I recently read a press report that stated that it had been discovered that shopping was good for women's health because it involved brisk walking every day. One can work on allotments, have a brisk walk and physical exercise, which reduces the risk of heart attacks, strokes and diabetes. So, there is a whole list of benefits to health. That is not necessarily the case for people of my noble friend's age because 35 per cent of plot holders are under the age of 50.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, can the Minister tell us—I think that from what he has said already I probably know the answer—whether any new allotments have been created in the past 10 years? Can he tell us what the planning guidance policy is from his department to local authorities on how they can retain allotments and create new ones?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. I regret that I do not have any information about whether new allotments have been added under the statutory system. Non-statutory allotments may well have been added, but we would not have any information about that. Under planning policy guidance 17—about which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked me some 18 months ago—it has been made more difficult for local authorities to dispose of allotments. There is a process to be gone through under the planning guidance. We are seeking to make sure that if allotments are disposed of those criteria are applied rigidly so that they are not sold off willy-nilly.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the position is in London, where the Green Party's candidate for Mayor is suggesting that 1,000 new plots are needed? Can he also tell us whether Section 106 planning procedures can be used to obtain new allotments?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer the noble Lord's question about Section 106 and new allotments. The section may well be used for providing allotment spaces. So far as concerns London, of the figure of 167 I gave for disposal of statutory allotments since 1996, only 13 have been in London. So it is quite a small percentage. It varies in other regions. But only 13 of those were in London, so that indicates a good story in some ways.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I declare an indirect interest. When I commenced farming on my own account, I found that I was the owner of a small field which had been set aside for allotments under an Act of Parliament early in the last century. It took about seven years to get that field back into cultivation. The allotment holders had no use for it; nobody wanted to come and have an allotment there. We should not be too euphoric.
	Can the Minister tell the House what proportion of allotments are owned by local authorities and what proportion are in other ownership? I think that that information would be helpful.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, it would be if I had it. The Government have no information on non-statutory allotments. We have no information about temporary allotments or private allotments. In my former constituency there were private allotments. We do not have any idea of what the proportion of the figures would be, therefore, we would not know whether they are being created, disposed of or any such things. We have information only about the statutory allotments.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the rent for allotment holders on non-statutory allotments is about £25 and that on statutory allotments it is about £70 per year?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there was a debate recently in the other place about rents on allotments in Lincolnshire. The fact of the matter is that local authorities can charge a rent. There are lots of different rules about what local authorities can charge for, in terms of making a profit or covering costs. There may well be differentials in rent. But what is the problem? If there is a market in allotments and some are run by local authorities and others are run by charities or gardening clubs, they will fix the rent according to what they need to charge.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the reduction in the number of allotments under previous governments shows that the party opposite has always lost the plot?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I apologise for bringing in that note but, having looked at the figures, it was important to mention it. A further bit of information, which is probably to the benefit of the party opposite because they were in power for more of those years, is that between 1969 and 1993 the percentage of female plot holders rose from 3 per cent to 16 per cent.

Royal Navy: Air Cover

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there will be sufficient air cover for future Royal Naval operations.

Lord Bach: My Lords, all naval task groups, whether those now or in the future, will deploy with appropriate defence capabilities.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, but, with the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers, how confident is the Minister in the current escort air defence capability before PAMS comes into service with the Type 45s? Will he confirm the Government's commitment to procure all 12 Type 45 destroyers?

Lord Bach: My Lords, maritime task groups possess their air defence capability, typically including medium and short range air defence missiles, such as Sea Dart and Sea Wolf, close-in weapon systems and active and passive decoys. We have introduced the upgraded Sea King airborne surveillance and control helicopter.
	The noble Lord and his party must understand that the nature of the threat has evolved over time with the main above-water threat to the fleet judged now to come from sea-skimming missiles which can be launched from air, land or sea-based platforms. As he knows, the Sea Harrier is designed to shoot down the aircraft, not the missile and is therefore unable to counter the full extent of the threat effectively as compared with modern ship-borne systems, designed specifically for that missile threat. As to his second question about Type 45s, no, I am not prepared to answer that question.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the Sea Harrier. Should we have kept the Sea Harrier? If we had done so, what would have been the cost of doing that?

Lord Bach: My Lords, if we had upgraded the Sea Harrier, as the Official Opposition were asking us to do, and which seems to have been their policy, it would have cost us at least £0.5 billion. It is not certain that putting a bigger engine into it would necessarily have worked at all.
	Given that the party opposite is determined to freeze defence spending, which effectively is a cut of £1.5 billion—we do not know yet how it would find that money—how would it find the other £0.5 billion?

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, if it is practical to manage without air cover for our current carriers for probably the next 10 years before the Joint Strike Fighter comes into operation, why is it absolutely essential that we have air cover from, say, 2015 onwards? What does he imagine is the threat that they will be meeting?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we want to have as widely layered an air defence as possible. The Joint Strike Fighter, which is due to come in, on present estimates, in 2012 in this country, and in 2008 in the United States, will be a multi-role aircraft. It will have an offensive role just as much as it has an air defence role. In fact, it will primarily have an air attack role. That fits in much more with our philosophy, which is that the role of the aircraft carrier is no longer to protect the fleet, as it was in the Cold War days, but involves power projection in support of offensive strikes. That is why we took the decision to have a Harrier, a GR7/9, which is an offensive, attack aircraft, as opposed to the Sea Harrier.

Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned air defence twice. Could he remind me, because I ought to know, whether the GR7/9 will have the role of the Sea Harrier as far as missiles and so on are concerned? When it is one aircraft against another in the air defence role, will he confirm that the GR7/9s will have all the avionics and everything necessary for that role?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the GR7/9 is not an air defence aircraft. It has Sidewinder Missiles in order to defend itself, but it does not have all the facilities of the Sea Harrier, which is an air defence aircraft. Indeed, it is right to say that the radar that the Sea Harrier and air defence aircraft had is different from that of the GR7/9.

Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Lord is getting more and more technical, could he help those of us who are laymen on this matter, who suppose, probably in an antiquated fashion, that the role of the helicopter was to go out around the fleet to pick up, in particular, submarine attack? Surely, those aircraft need fixed-wing cover, and that will not be available under present arrangements for some years.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord accuses me of being an expert. I deny it completely. From his question, he sounds like much more of an expert than I am. The GR7/9 Harrier that will be on the aircraft carriers will be sufficient, as far as air cover is concerned, until the Joint Strike Fighter comes along.

Charities

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the committee should report on the draft Bill by 30 September 2004.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, I welcome the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider any Charities Bill, bearing in mind that Charities Bills are nearly always above party differences, but why must we wait until 30 December for the proposed Joint Committee to report on a Bill that is already available in draft? Would it not be more suitable to encourage the Joint Committee to report by, say, 30 June? Then we could make good progress with it in this Session.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I understand it, the draft Bill is expected to be published in mid-May. We have asked the Joint Committee to report by 30 September.
	On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Children Bill [HL]

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, on behalf on my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Baroness Andrews.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Insurance Contributions and Statutory Payments Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Patents Bill [HL]

Read a third time.
	Clause 12 [Threats of infringement proceedings]:

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 6, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) For subsection (2) there is substituted—
	"(2) In any such proceedings the claimant or pursuer shall, subject to subsection (2A) below, be entitled to the relief claimed if he proves that the threats were so made and satisfies the court that he is a person aggrieved by them.
	(2A) If the defendant or defender proves that the acts in respect of which proceedings were threatened constitute or, if done, would constitute an infringement of a patent—
	(a) the claimant or pursuer shall be entitled to the relief claimed only if he shows that the patent alleged to be infringed is invalid in a relevant respect;
	(b) even if the claimant or pursuer does show that the patent is invalid in a relevant respect, he shall not be entitled to the relief claimed if the defendant or defender proves that at the time of making the threats he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the patent was invalid in that respect.""

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8, which stand in my name. This group of amendments addresses concerns that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised at Report. The noble Earl will no doubt have realised that the main amendment in this group follows closely the approach of his amendment on this issue, which he moved at Report.
	The main amendment in this group, Amendment No. 1, would amend Section 70(2) of the 1977 Act, in order to give a limited additional defence to a patent holder who is being sued for making unjustified threats of patent infringement. At present, when a patent holder, or anyone else, is sued for making unjustified threats, he may successfully defend himself by showing that infringement was indeed occurring. However, if the infringer can then show that the patent is actually invalid in a relevant respect, so that he has a defence to the allegation of infringement, the patent holder becomes liable for making unjustified threats.
	A patent holder may believe that his patent is valid and may have correctly assessed that infringement is taking place. He will rightly want to approach the infringer to resolve the problem, and he is acting in good faith if he does so. However, he may be deterred from this course of action because he knows that, if his patent is found to be invalid for some reason, he will be liable for making unjustified threats. The amendment addresses this problem. Where the patent holder has been sued for making unjustified threats, and his patent has been found to be invalid, he will not be liable, provided he can show, first, that infringement was taking place and, secondly, that he did not know or have reason to suspect that his patent was invalid when he approached the infringer.
	The new provision makes clear that the onus is on the patent holder to prove both these points. The provision will not offer any protection for a patent holder who approaches an alleged infringer while knowing or having reason to suspect that his patent is invalid. I also emphasise that the new defence will not be available where the court finds that the patent holder was wrong in his assessment that infringement was taking place.
	Finally, I take this opportunity to add one other point concerning the threats provisions. Noble Lords will recall that we promised in Committee to consider a provision to exempt legal advisers from the threats provisions. On closer examination, we decided that any action in this respect would not be appropriate, not least because of the different nature and extent of the UK and Australian threats provisions. I am therefore pleased to be able to bring forward this amendment to provide further assistance to those trying to settle disputes in good faith. It complements the other changes that are already contained in this Bill, which will ensure that the threats provisions no longer provide such a barrier to the negotiation and settlement of disputes over infringement. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment. I am also pleased that he has taken the wise decision not to provide additional protection for legal advisers.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 12, line 34, at end insert—
	"In section 16(1) (publication of application), after "section 22 below" there is inserted "and to any prescribed restrictions"."

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this group of amendments can be summarised quite simply. The amendments modify the 1977 Act so that an inventor may, in appropriate circumstances, have his name and address kept confidential by the Patent Office. It will not mean, of course, that a patent applicant or patent holder can keep his details secret. Noble Lords will no doubt recall that we debated this issue in Committee and at Report, so I will keep my comments on the amendments brief.
	The amendments clear the way for the relevant secondary legislation, the Patents Rules, to provide the detailed mechanism for confidentiality. This has a number of advantages. First, as I said at Report, it allows us to consult users of the patents system before we set out the details of how and when an inventor may have his name and address kept confidential. Secondly, this approach is consistent with the way in which the matter is dealt with in regulations under the European Patent Convention. Thirdly, rules are already in place which deal with how and when other sensitive material supplied to the Patent Office may be kept confidential.
	I trust that noble Lords will agree that these amendments fully meet their concerns on this issue, and that it is appropriate to deliver the measure in this way. I beg to move.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment that the Government have put forward. As the Minister will know, this is a concern that I raised both in Committee and at Report, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I welcome the Government's response. It will give much needed protection in a limited number of cases.
	Before I sit down, this may be the last opportunity before this Bill passes to thank the Minister for the extremely courteous way in which this Bill has been conducted. I think we both feel that this is absolutely a model of the way Bills ought to be conducted—that what we said from these Benches and from the Conservative Benches was very closely listened to by the Government. We did not manage to persuade your Lordships to accept all of our amendments, but we did persuade you of the efficacy of many of the points we made. I thank you very much.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the Minister. Of course it is important to remember that most inventors will not desire any confidentiality—quite the opposite actually, because they want to see their name lit up in lights. However, it is an important amendment, and I would like to echo the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, about our deliberations on this Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 8:
	Page 13, line 23, at end insert—
	"In section 24 (publication and certificate of grant), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	"(4) Subsection (3) above shall not require the comptroller to identify as inventor a person who has waived his right to be mentioned as inventor in any patent granted for the invention."" Page 13, line 37, at end insert—
	"In section 61 (proceedings for infringement of patent), in subsection (4)(b), for "plaintiff" there is substituted "claimant"." Page 13, line 40, at end insert—
	"In section 63 (relief for infringement of partially valid patent), in subsection (2), for "plaintiff" there is substituted "claimant"." Page 13, line 40, at end insert—
	"In section 70 (remedy for groundless threats of infringement proceedings), in subsection (3)(c), for "plaintiff" there is substituted "claimant"." Page 14, line 33, leave out "After subsection (2)" and insert—
	"In subsection (2), for paragraph (i) there is substituted—
	"(i) giving effect to an inventor's rights to be mentioned conferred by section 13, and providing for an inventor's waiver of any such right to be subject to acceptance by the comptroller;".
	( ) After that subsection" Page 14, line 42, at end insert—
	"In section 131 (Northern Ireland), at the end there is inserted—
	"(f) any reference to a claimant includes a reference to a plaintiff.""

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I would like to thank the noble Lords for their kind comments. I think it is encouraging that at least on the Patents Bill we can agree to have a rational approach to these issues. I am very pleased that this rather technical Bill has passed through in such a constructive manner.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise to the Lord Chairman for intervening, but I wish to express my thanks as a Back-Bencher on this particular Bill, and reiterate what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall and by my noble friend, Earl Attlee. As one of the last of the Mohicans who was on the Benches in 1977 with the master Act, I found the Minister's comments displayed enormous clarity and knowledge, and were very helpful. Some of the points that he raised on Second Reading were also very helpful and much appreciated. I also appreciated his technical knowledge and skill, and the putting right of most of my queries. I thank him very much.
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Health Protection Agency Bill [HL]

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Health Protection Agency]:

Lord Fowler: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 5, at end insert "and in particular the duty of the Secretary of State to respond to its reports"

Lord Fowler: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27.
	There is no doubt that we are exceptionally well served by the Health Protection Agency. We have a team of highly skilled professionals who provide invaluable information for the guidance of governments, and I would suggest that nowhere is that more important than in the area of HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted disease generally. We are reliant on the agency to provide an objective picture of what is taking place throughout the country, and frankly, in this kind of area, it is far easier to obtain opinions than it is to obtain facts.
	There is little point in collecting such information if action does not follow. Sadly, the problem today is not the collection of the evidence or facts. The problem is the half-hearted response of the Government to that evidence. The purpose of my two linked amendments is at least to ensure that any government have to respond to the reports of the Health Protection Agency. In other words, they require any government to say what they are doing about the problems the agency has revealed.
	The reason I believe we need such a duty placed on government is that today we face a crisis in public health—a rapid decline in the sexual health of this country. In England, one in 10 sexually active young women, and many men, are infected with chlamydia. Syphilis rates have increased by 500 per cent in the last six years, and those for gonorrhoea have doubled. Waiting times for treatment at clinics dealing with sexual disease have increased, while the conditions of the clinics are often, frankly, lamentable. These clinics, I should emphasise, are intended to provide immediate access and confidential treatment.
	As for HIV/AIDS, the position continues to deteriorate. We now have 50,000 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, a 20 per cent increase from 2001–02, and the highest ever figure of new diagnoses in one year. We should remember that within that 50,000 total, there are an estimated 15,000 cases of undiagnosed HIV, with all that means for public health. Mortality rates have decreased because of medical advance, but new diagnoses have also increased.
	Of course, HIV/AIDS in the United Kingdom is not remotely on the scale of infection as that in sub-Saharan Africa or, tragically, now parts of Asia. However, the figures continue to increase year by year, and it remains our most significant communicable disease.
	In committee, the Minister twice denied that all of this amounted to a crisis. Frankly, I can think of no other description for what is happening. "Crisis" is the word used by both the House of Commons Select Committee on Health and the acknowledged experts in the field.
	The House of Commons Health Committee reported last May and, although the Commons is on holiday this week, I am happy to put the case for that committee in this House. It stated:
	"We have been appalled by the crisis in sexual health we have heard about and witnessed during our inquiry. We do not use the word 'crisis' lightly but in this case it is appropriate".
	It went on to say:
	"No area of public health in England has suffered a more dramatic and widespread decline in recent years than sexual health . . . [It] is one of the poorest-resourced, most stretched and least well-staffed areas of the NHS. One after another of the memoranda we received attested to the pressures faced . . . We were told that long waiting lists had replaced open access; that where open access remained in place hundreds of patients a week were now turned away".
	If anyone doubts that position and that description of the clinics, I suggest they cross the river to see the situation in St Thomas's Hospital.
	It is not just the Health Select Committee that makes such claims; a similar message comes from Professor Michael Adler, an acknowledged expert in this area who yesterday, incidentally, gave a very distinguished address at the Royal College of Physicians. He said, in a letter to the Times a few weeks ago:
	"The Department of Health's desire to shift the balance and devolve responsibility to primary care trusts (PCTs) means that no one takes responsibility for sexual health. PCTs respond to NHS priorities and performance management: sexual health is not covered by either of these . . . The time has come for strong central political leadership and recognition that we are dealing with a major public health crisis".
	Again, that word "crisis" is used. If noble Lords require more graphic evidence, they might like to look at the two-page report in last Sunday's Independent on Sunday.
	I do not claim for one moment that my amendment will miraculously solve all those problems, but it will at least force the Government to concentrate on the area and give their attention to an area of policy that is unfashionable and in which politicians risk plunging into deep controversy. We ignore the warnings in the figures of the Health Protection Agency at our peril. The trouble is that, over recent years, we have done just that; we have ignored those warnings. I regret to say that government has been too slow to recognise what is happening. I say "regret" because I do not believe that it is remotely an issue of party politics. However, I must point out that it took the Government four years—the whole of the previous Parliament—to set out their strategy, much to the frustration of many of the Government's own most loyal supporters. Such delay could be avoided, if there were, as the amendments propose, a requirement on the Government to respond.
	There is no one answer to the problem that I have raised. At the end of the 1980s, I ran a campaign under the banner "Don't Die of Ignorance". Ignorance remains one of the issues that must be tackled. A recent survey showed that almost three-quarters of those between 16 and 24 had never heard of chlamydia. Such ignorance should be tackled by education—education at school and education in the broadest sense afterwards. I agree with those who say that health education goes further than simply saying, "Use a condom". People should be given the knowledge to make their own informed decisions. However, I hope that it is still recognised that using a condom is dramatically successful in preventing sexual disease. Nowhere is that more important than in the area of HIV/AIDS, for which, in spite of medical advance, there is still no cure. That point should be emphasised and underlined. I also believe that effective publicity is important to our efforts. In this country, we are fortunate in having the modern means to get messages through. We know that those messages can get through, and we know that they work.
	In the end, as my amendment says, it all comes back to the Government's response. If one message comes through from experience in this country and overseas, it is that the problems are tackled only when governments lead. My fear is that the Government are not leading; certainly, they are not leading to the extent that is necessary. We should recognise the issue. Policy is often made when governments respond to pressure from people suffering from a particular disease. That is understandable. The trouble here is that we are talking of prevention: there is no mass lobby for prevention generally or for preventing sexual disease in particular. That is why the response and the attitude of government are so vital.
	If the Government do not lead, no one will. I suggest that the public would expect the reports of the Health Protection Agency to be followed by statements from the Government on how they intend to respond. That is what the amendments would do. I beg to move.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I support my noble friend in all that he said, not least his words of praise for those who work in the Health Protection Agency, some of whom I met when I visited the agency last month in the company of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
	The essence of my noble friend's amendment is simple: the buck stops with Ministers. The HPA can do a great deal, but it can be effective only up to a certain point. As my noble friend said, in the end, it is up to elected members of the Government to act appropriately on the agency's recommendations. I agree with him that, without a duty in the Bill at least to respond formally, the legislation will contain no drivers for action. It is those drivers for action that count, bearing in mind the number of public health policy reports that have been published over the past 30 years—all of them, doubtless, extremely worthy and almost all of them published to zero effect. There is a need for a statutory duty, however mild its framing, to ensure that future reports elicit an automatic response, independently of the parliamentary process, rather than just being put on a shelf somewhere.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I also support the noble Lord's amendment. We attempted to put our names to the amendment, but there must have been some slip between cup and lip somewhere in the process.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the work of the Health Protection Agency is extremely impressive, particularly when seen at close quarters. One of the issues that politicians must address is what happens when an agency such as the HPA throws up such a volume of evidence and issues. The essence of the matter is prioritisation. It is a matter for political response, and there must be a response to the HPA's reports. They cover a huge range of issues, and one of the most impressive things is the spread of expertise. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, concentrated on sexual health, but, by the same token, one could make the argument in a range of other areas, not least microbiological issues and the need for government to respond to them.
	It is easy for politicians to brush aside some of the scientific evidence thrown up in reports by agencies such as the HPA. The noble Lord's words carry considerable force, given his experience, but we must cover a range of other issues as well. I urge the Minister to take the amendments seriously. Having visited the agency at Colindale, I am more than ever convinced of the benefits of making the amendments.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the noble Lord's amendment. On these Benches, we support the spirit and the letter of the amendment, and we fully recognise that the faith communities and those in education bear particular responsibility for advancing the cause in the public media. We also recognise that the leadership of the Government is essential if we are to make progress.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I echo the remarks made by noble Lords about the quality of the staff of the Health Protection Agency. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that I have never denied that HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections were a serious issue. I might quibble a little about the word "crisis", but we will not get into a semantic debate about it today.
	I remind your Lordships that the Bill is about setting up the Health Protection Agency. I must briefly respond to the suggestion that the Government are not doing enough on HIV/AIDS. I remind noble Lords that a national strategy on sexual health and HIV was published in July 2001. Its aims are to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections and HIV and to improve treatment and care for those who need them. That strategy was backed by an initial investment of £47.5 million, and an additional £26.5 million was announced in 2003–04 to modernise genito-urinary medicine services and expand targeted HIV prevention for those most at risk. Recommended standards for HIV treatment were published in October 2003. Similar documents on sexual health are under way. We have done a lot to improve the detection of maternal HIV infection and prevent the transmission of HIV to babies when they are born.
	There is a lot more where that comes from, but, as I said, the debate is not about sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS; it is about setting up the Health Protection Agency. I must say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that the amendments would not deliver what he wants. These amendments would require the Secretary of State, but none of the other appropriate authorities, to respond to the agency's annual report within two months of receiving it and laying it before Parliament. That is what these amendments would do.
	I fully accept the need for the Government to tackle issues of importance and to demonstrate publicly how they are doing so. But these amendments are not the best way of meeting that need. If accepted, the requirement that they would impose might be met by publishing a response which said no more than, "Thank you very much for your annual report, the contents of which I have noted". The Government would have discharged their responsibilities to respond to the annual report, by doing just that.
	These amendments relate to the annual report. It has not been the practice of successive Governments to respond to the annual reports produced by the hundred or so arms-length and advisory bodies in the NHS health care sector. The amendments misunderstand the purpose of the agency's annual reports. They are a way of keeping Parliament informed of how the agency has used the funds voted by Parliament. They are not necessarily a call for government action.
	The Government will continue to produce reports and make announcements at appropriate times when we have something new or particular to say. If Parliament considers that the Government are failing to make clear their stance or plans on any particular point, Members will be able to hold us to account through Parliamentary Questions, Select Committee inquiries and the like.
	These amendments would not deliver the aspirations that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, suggests. They should not be pressed.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, before I come to the Minister's final point about the purpose, effect and impact of the amendments, I should like to say as gently as I can that I continue to be disappointed by his response to this matter.
	We should not quibble about whether we should use the word "crisis": there is a crisis out there. Until the Government recognise that, we will not get the action that is required. None of us in this House—and none of the public—wants that to take place.
	The Minister has provided what one recognises as a departmental reply. I very strongly urge Ministers to go back to their departments and look at, read and discuss the reports of Select Committees and other bodies that have looked into this area. It is a very serious situation and in my view the Minister epitomises the Government's complacency in this area.
	The Minister said that the amendments will not meet my requirements. That is a powerful argument. I will have to look at this matter further for the next and final stage of this Bill. I should like to thank those noble Lords who have supported the principle of what is taking place. It is interesting that the only person who has opposed it has been the Minister.
	I shall try to come back on this point, but I say to the Minister that the Government need to take this issue much more seriously than they are at the moment. Unless they do so, there is going to be some real tragedy in this country. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 [Health functions]:

Lord Clement-Jones: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 10, at end insert "including zoonoses"

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, much as I like the words "zoonosis" and "zoonoses", I would not be bringing back this amendment unless I had not been wholly satisfied by what the Minister said in Committee. His reply was not wholly satisfactory. I do not intend to go through all the points that I made in that debate; rather I shall unpick some on the Minister's points.
	My disquiet about accountability and responsibility in the matter of zoonosis was compounded by my visit to the Health Protection Agency. The HPA is an expert body on zoonosis. It was clear during the SARS crisis that it was a reference point—indeed, it received one of the first cultures of the virus from the far east, and its opinion was relied upon heavily.
	In discussion with the agency, it was not at all clear that it is the authority with the prime responsibility for tackling zoonosis. It is the expert reference point and its advice is heavily relied on. But Defra is the body with the prime responsibility for tackling zoonosis. Given the expert nature of the HPA, that is wrong. It is not spelled out entirely in the Select Committee report, but in Committee I read out an extract from page 27 of the report which not only described how important zoonotic infections are, but also recommended that that HPA take on that responsibility. The report does not say that Defra has this responsibility, but that has emerged.
	In Committee, the Minister made great play of the fact that the essence of this was co-operation; that there was a duty under the Bill to co-operate; that there was no argument about the importance of zoonosis; but that the wording of the Bill was almost perfect and the parliamentary draftsmen, as ever, were omniscient. Of course, it was implied, the term "infectious disease" covered zoonosis. I can accept that.
	The reason for bringing back this matter is that the responsibility for tackling zoonosis needs to be primarily under the wing of the HPA. That is the organisation with the expertise. It seems unsafe to allow Defra—a government department that does not have primary responsibility for human health—to be in that position.
	I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I believe that the conclusions of the Select Committee are still correct and discussions since the Committee stage have convinced me that what we said at that time is still wholly correct. I beg to move.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall have another go.
	As I made clear in our earlier debate, it is our intention that the HPA should take a strong interest in and be involved with zoonosis. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that Defra is the lead on zoonosis in animals and the HPA is the lead on zoonosis in humans. The help that the HPA special health authority is contributing to the international effort to combat avian flu is an example of how this is already happening. It is discharging those responsibilities.
	Its predecessor bodies were also active in this area; for example, in work on foot and mouth disease and BSE. The HPA already undertakes broad zoonoses disease surveillance, including diseases that are not endemic in the UK. However, work on zoonosis requires liaison between human and animal health organisations at central, regional and local levels.
	At central government level, there are good working relationships on zoonosis between the Department of Health, Defra, the Foods Standards Agency and the Health and Safety Executive, and with and between bodies that answer to them, such as the Veterinary Laboratory Agency and the HPA special health authority. All these bodies have different expertise and perspectives to contribute, and they need to be involved.
	We will be bringing forward amendments later to tidy up some of the drafting of the Bill. We are not claiming that our drafting of Bills is always perfect. However, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, of what I said earlier in our discussions. The term "infectious disease" already covers zoonosis and, indeed, zoonoses. The amendment is therefore not necessary to enable the HPA to be involved in zoonosis and, as I said, to take the lead responsibility in relation to zoonosis and zoonoses in humans.
	I suggest that the inclusion of a reference to any particular example of infectious disease could cast doubt on the scope of the generality of the expression of infectious disease. That is not a defence in depth of parliamentary draftsmen but a real point—mentioning one in a collective casts doubt, by implication, on what else is included in that collective term.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply—we have benefited considerably from it. For the Minister to say that the HPA is the lead authority on zoonosis as applied to humans is much stronger than his previous reply. I welcome the admission of a chink in the drafting armour—that must have taken a great deal of saying. We wait with bated breath on that front.
	What the Minister said was welcome. There are issues about who takes responsibility in the field and what authority the HPA has in situations in which infection arises in animals that could easily escape to humans. I suspect that the relationship it has with Defra is a practical issue that will require good will on all sides. We cannot legislate for that, certainly not in primary legislation. However, it is very helpful to have such a statement, giving the HPA the necessary authority in this area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Radiation protection functions]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 3, line 5, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	"( ) If a Health and Safety body asks the Agency to enter into an agreement with the body for the Agency to carry out any of the body's functions relating to radiation (whether ionising or not) on the body's behalf, the appropriate authority may direct the Agency to do so."

Lord Warner: My Lords, the first of these government amendments would replace Clause 3(4) with a new provision. Currently, this provision provides a power similar to that in Section 1(7A) of the Radiological Protection Act 1970.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, questioned in Committee whether it was right that the Secretary of State should be able to direct the agency to agree with the Health and Safety Commission that the commission should "relinquish" any of its functions in favour of the agency. He thought there might be a case for providing for this to happen in the event of an emergency, but questioned whether, in normal circumstances, an independent person such as the Health and Safety Commission could be required to agree.
	We have looked again at the provision in the light of the noble Earl's comments. It has never been our intention that it should be used to apply compulsion to a health and safety body. The government amendment, therefore, aims to make it clear that the situation contemplated is one where the health and safety body has asked the agency to carry out functions of the health and safety body.
	The Health and Safety Commission and its Northern Ireland equivalent already have the power to enter into agreements with bodies such as the HPA for such bodies to carry out their functions. However, nothing in the Bill gives the agency the power to agree to carry out another body's function, except in the circumstances envisaged in Clause 4(5), which are not relevant here.
	The Bill therefore needs to provide for the agency to agree to carry out a function of a health and safety body. Without some such provision, there could be doubt about whether the agency would have the power to accept a proposal from the health and safety body that it should exercise one or more of the body's functions. Clause 3(4) and the new version of it proposed in the government amendment provide for just that. We are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for bringing this point forward.
	The second government amendment provides for the deletion of Clause 3(9). This subsection currently provides that Scottish Ministers must not give a direction under subsection (4) and must not be consulted in relation to such a direction for the purposes of subsection (6).
	The Bill, as introduced, reflected a view by the Scottish Executive that it would not need the power in Clause 3(4) because health and safety is largely a reserved matter. Subsection (9) took account of that. Subsequently, views on the desirability of subsection (9) changed, and the Government, in agreement with Scottish Ministers, tabled an amendment for Grand Committee which would have deleted it.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested in Committee that the Bill, as introduced, reflected a decision by Scottish Ministers,
	"to subordinate or relinquish to English Ministers their right of direction in relation to radiological protection matters".—[Official Report, 3/3/04; col. GC 267.]
	The noble Earl welcomed that and was concerned that the government amendment to delete subsection (9) reflected a change from that position. I have to disappoint him, because although I agreed to withdraw the amendment and provide more details before it was considered, the position in terms of devolved matters has not changed. In answer to the noble Earl's suggestion that the Bill as introduced showed a readiness on the part of Scottish Ministers to relinquish powers they currently have, I have to make it clear that health and safety is and remains largely a reserved matter. The Bill does not change that. Similarly, the radiation protection functions which were devolved before the Bill remain devolved under the Bill.
	Scottish Ministers could not be an appropriate authority, as defined in Clause 6, for the purposes of Clause 3(4) at present, as there is no relevant function exercisable within devolved competence. Deleting subsection (9) does not give Scottish Ministers powers which they do not currently have, but it does mean that if in future a health and safety function in relation to radiation protection becomes exercisable within devolved competence, the power in subsection (4) would become available to Scottish Ministers. More immediately, the deletion of subsection (9) removes the prohibition on consulting Scottish Ministers when a direction is issued, a prohibition which none of the bodies identified in Clause 6 wishes to maintain. I beg to move.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing government Amendment No. 3, which certainly addresses the point I sought to make in Committee. I, for one, had not picked up from the Minister's remarks in Committee or from any published Government statement that what was envisaged was a situation in which the health and safety body made a request that the agency should assume one or more of its functions. I think his remarks in that regard were extremely helpful. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank him for the letter he sent me a few days ago on this matter.
	With regard to Amendment No. 4, I once again thank the Minister for some very helpful explanatory remarks, which he foreshadowed in his letter to me. I am much clearer now about what is and what is not a reserved matter. The noble Lord has put it squarely on the record that there is no change in the current constitutional position. I am therefore quite content for the amendment to be agreed if that is the wish of the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 3, line 22, leave out subsection (9).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Functions: supplementary]:

Baroness Barker: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
	"( ) ensure that the Agency's specialist services at the local level are adequately resourced to enable them to appropriately discharge their duties."

Baroness Barker: My Lords, we turn to the funding of local HPA facilities, which we debated in Grand Committee. It would be fair to say that there was a degree of confusion on all sides during that debate. I therefore thank the Minister for his letter of 24 March, which clarified some matters to me, in particular that those services which have been transferred from PCTs will no longer be required to be carried out. That was a useful clarification.
	However, it is not clear whether the funding of local HPA functions will be ensured. That issue lies at the heart of my amendment. The Minister usefully explained something that I admit I had not realised; that 75 per cent of the HPA's funding comes from the selling of its activities and services. They are world-class services, as we have acknowledged. Some of my colleagues have had the opportunity to see them for themselves. I can understand that that is a significant and perhaps growing source of income; for example, the research and development programmes that generate new vaccines; the manufacture of licensed pharmaceutical products and the royalties from their sale; and the development, clinical trial and manufacture of biological products for the bio-pharmaceutical industry.
	However, I am concerned about the provision in Schedule 1 that would allow the Treasury to take into account the income that is generated from those activities in determining the level of funding for the Health Protection Agency. We on these Benches are concerned that the basic duty of health protection should be guaranteed by government funding and should not be dependent on the extent to which the agency can generate income from those sources. It was not clear in the Minister's letter whether that is the case. I note that he stated that the extent to which the agency succeeds in selling its services will not necessarily always mean that the Government will cut its funding, but there is still a degree of uncertainty which causes us some concern on these Benches.
	I quite understand the need to determine the overall resources that are likely to be available to the agency as a whole, but our amendment would ensure that those basic, day-to-day health protection functions at local level are never jeopardised, particularly at times when there may be a sudden and increased demand for those services. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, spoke about some of those issues in moving his amendment. Will the Minister give us further clarification about local funding? I beg to move.

Earl Howe: My Lords, we can make one quite obvious observation about the Health Protection Agency: in order to do its job properly, it has to be adequately resourced and funded, as the noble Baroness made clear. Paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 takes us to the heart of that debate and I shall speak now to the three amendments to which my name is attached—Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23.
	If we look at the wording of the schedule, I am not sure that we can derive great comfort from it. The agency will be funded from several different sources: from the Department of Health; from the health budgets of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and from miscellaneous income generation. The amounts to be contributed by each of the governmental sources seem to be determined by no objective considerations whatever. They are to be arrived at from individual ministerial decisions on what appears to be appropriate. As I read the wording, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish contributions will be decided on first, before the Secretary of State decides how much he is going to chip in. In the worst case, the Secretary of State might be obliged to contribute a disproportionate share of the kitty if the others decided to cut back their public health budgets. What exactly would constitute a disproportionate share of the kitty? How is a calculation of fair shares to be arrived at? I am certainly not clear about that, and it would be helpful if the minister could enlighten us.
	Paragraph 19(2)(d) worries me. It states that in deciding on the amount he is going to contribute to the agency's budget, the Secretary of State must take into account,
	"any income received by the Agency from any other source".
	That seems to provide him with a golden excuse to reduce the amount of his contribution if the agency has been clever enough to raise income from external sources, as it does regularly. As I know from my visit to the agency last month, there is a whole variety of ways in which it is able to generate income from the services that it offers. The Minister may argue, as I am sure that he will, that it would be grossly irresponsible for the Department of Health to disregard such income completely when determining an appropriate level of grant in aid. The trouble is that where income from external sources is generated, that very fact becomes a driver for ratcheting down the level of public subsidy; in other words, the agency, having generated external income in one year, would be given a target to raise even more in the following year. It might or might not be able to meet that target; but in the process, one key issue is in danger of being overlooked, which is whether there is a risk that the agency might not be funded adequately to perform the full range of its functions.
	In addition, certain activities fall naturally to the agency that might not be seen as strictly essential for the performance of its functions. It might be, for example, that the agency decides to make a bid to the New Opportunities Fund, or another grant-making body, to fund a specific programme of activity, related, let us say, to a programme of public communication. Engaging the public with the science that underlies the more common public health concerns, such as SARS, food poisoning or MRSA, and educating them about the degree of risk in those areas, could be seen as one of the core tasks of the agency, but there might not be enough government funding to roll out a programme of that kind as fully as the board of directors might like. Will the agency be penalised for raising that income? If so, that would be wrong.
	A further concern that I have relates to the UK contribution to the World Health Organisation. At present, it is fair to say that our national contribution is put together in a somewhat piecemeal fashion, so I am not sure what the total now is. However, I have also heard the view that, nowadays, the UK lags behind other countries in its financial support for the WHO, even though the WHO places a heavy reliance on the expertise in this country to assist it in the control and monitoring of infectious epidemics. That does not seem to be a comfortable situation for us to be in. Sweden and the USA have specific, dedicated budgets for international collaboration in health matters. Why does the UK not have the same?
	Of course, the Secretary of State will have to gauge the extent of his contribution to the agency's budget partly by reference to the amounts promised by the other countries, but he should have a duty also to have regard to what the agency needs in order to perform the full range of its duties in an effective manner. If no such benchmark is set out in the Bill, there can surely be no basis for challenging any decision on funding that the Secretary of State takes, however inappropriate it may be to the work that the agency has in train. We cannot give the agency the right to demand whatever sum it likes, but it should not, on the other hand, be wholly dependent on the mood and whim of the Minister in securing the funding that it needs.
	I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those concerns. I am sure that he will agree that they run to the heart of the Government's case for a more effective and joined-up approach to public health protection.

Lord Warner: My Lords, in responding to these amendments, I will briefly put what I am going to say into context by reminding noble Lords of what I said at Second Reading of this Bill, where I am clearly on the record in Hansard as saying that the intention is to plan for an increase of £25 million or so in the provision for the HPA between 2003–04 and 2004–05. That is the context in which we are dealing with the funding.
	Amendment No. 5 would enable, but not require, the agency to ensure that its specialist services at the local level are resourced adequately to enable them to discharge their duties appropriately. I agree that specialist services at a local level need to be funded properly. Indeed, the creation of the HPA has already helped us to go some way towards addressing this issue, by concentrating specialist services within a single organisation and establishing a framework within which it will be easier to ensure that the same health protection standards are met in all parts of England.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, drew attention in Grand Committee to a briefing note from the Faculty for Public Health which argued that local services inherited by the HPA are under-resourced, and I have written to her on that particular issue. But I would draw attention to the fact that the faculty was referring to the situation in 1997, and we believe that staffing levels have significantly improved since then. I enclosed some information on that point with my letter, which went to other noble Lords and had been submitted to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. We will certainly continue to work with the HPA to ensure that it has sufficient funding and that it puts it to good use.
	The Bill established the agency as a non-departmental body. It does not determine funding levels for the agency, or for health protection more generally. I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to tackle the issue of funding at the local level. The amendment now makes clear that the reference is to the agency's own local services, but in our view it remains unnecessary. The HPA already has the power to decide how to allocate resources between its different functions. Our intention is that the agency will have the same power, subject to the power in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 in relation to people who provide money to it. It would be odd, we believe, to make specific provision for local services in the Bill, which seems to privilege them over any other services the agency might provide. It seems to me that this is the kind of micro-management we are all trying to get away from within the NHS.
	Paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 of the Bill as introduced sets out a rational way for the Secretary of State to reach decisions on what funding to provide for the agency. Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 would replace this with an approach which I do not believe is as rational, and in our view they should be resisted.
	Amendment No. 21 would enable—but, I accept, not require—the Secretary of State to fund the agency at a level which would enable it to undertake the full range of its functions effectively. When the agency is carrying out functions for the devolved administrations, and funding for those functions is included in the financial settlements for those administrations, it is not clear to me why it should be thought necessary that the Secretary of State should do this.
	I assume that the reasoning behind Amendment No. 22—the change of "must" to "may"—is similar: that it is desirable that the Secretary of State alone should be able to fund the agency for all its functions, and therefore he should not be required to consider the funding provided by the devolved administrations. Even if there is no requirement to consider their funding, I am confident that, in practice, the Secretary of State will want to do so. The Secretary of State has a wide range of responsibilities in relation to priorities, and it does not seem rational that he should simply ignore these contributions from the devolved administrations in setting the budget for the HPA.
	Amendment No. 23 is also, in our view, undesirable. It seems to suggest that the Secretary of State should not take account of any income the agency receives, other than that from the devolved administrations. We have made clear, but it is worth going over some of this again, the extent and type of income that the HPA is already generating and we have every reason to think will continue to generate. It is an agency that has much to contribute, not just to the UK government and the devolved administrations, but to others as well. It has long been Government policy that departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies should make better use of their assets—not just their physical assets but also their intellectual property, data and skills—by engaging in commercial services. The HPA already does this. For example, in 2003–04 the HPA budgeted for an external income of over £70 million. This was not tight-fisted government. It came from research grants, roughly £10 million; micro-biological testing, around £33 million; surveillance services, just under £4 million; manufactured products, around £18 million; plus other sundry income, including royalties and licences of £5 million. Customers from both the private and public sectors, UK and overseas, were involved. For 2004–05, it forecasts external income of around £74 million, spread across the same range of activities and in roughly the same proportions.
	The National Radiological Protection Board's total external income in 2003–04 totalled around £9 million. It raises funds from external sources such as the EU, government departments and agencies other than the Department of Health, and local authorities to support its scientific programme of work. A major proportion of its external income is earned through the direct commercial services that it offers to users of radioactive material, principally UK industries and businesses. These commercial services include a personal dosimetry service, radiation protection advice and training, and other technical services. Again, this income will go up in 2004–05.
	The funds generated are reinvested in the work of the organisations concerned in both cases. The benefits from these activities are not simply financial. It is the experience of both the National Radiological Protection Board and the HPA that the dynamics and diversity which develop in an organisation which has many facets and commercial exchanges with the wider world makes it a more exciting place to work, so that there are recruitment and retention incentives as well. It provides opportunities that attract high calibre people, and that benefits the core functions for which the organisation was created.
	We think this approach is the right approach. It is not about being tight-fisted on the part of central government, although it does recognise the reality that the HPA has these skills and is able to market them and generate income. It seems rational in these circumstances that the Secretary of State should take account of those sources of income when settling the budget for the HPA. I have said already, in a context where our actions match our words, that we are looking to ensure that the funding for the HPA is appropriate.
	On one particular point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—that it was wrong for the Secretary of State to reduce agency funding on the basis that it has made a successful bid to the New Opportunities Fund—the Bill does not require the Secretary of State to reduce funding. As I have said, he would need to take account of efforts in income generation and the work that is done in settling the funding, as well as all the priorities that any Secretary of State has to take account of across the wide spread of the healthcare field.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, this has been a useful debate, and I thank the Minister for his answers. There is still a gap between the Minister's explanation and the concern that we have on this side of the House. We are not concerned that the agency should be in any way limited from developing the work that it has done so well commercially; that is not at issue. What is of concern to myself, and to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in moving his amendment, is that within the context of the devolved administrations and of services provided at a local level, there should always be a certainty that the essential work of the agency is funded adequately. What happens beyond that, as and when the agency is successful in developing its work nationally and internationally, is a separate matter.
	I believe that it is more the drafting of the Bill that causes problems for myself and for the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I hope that before we consider these matters again we might be able to come up with a form of drafting that enables us to have our genuine concerns taken into account about essential services being safeguarded, without in any way seeking to impinge on the agency's good work. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Clement-Jones: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
	"( ) If the Secretary of State considers that the Agency is not undertaking an appropriate function, he may direct it to do so.
	( ) The Secretary of State may not limit the Agency in the exercise of a function that the Agency considers appropriate."

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, without wishing to stretch the metaphor too far, putting Amendment No. 6 before the government amendments feels a little like putting the cart before the horse. I do not want your Lordships to speculate on who the horse might be in those circumstances. It means that I have to get my retaliation in first, this being Report stage.
	The matter that caused most of us the greatest affliction in Committee was whether or not the "appropriate authority", which in most cases would be the Secretary of State, would be able to prevent the Health Protection Agency publishing or carrying out an act that the Secretary of State did not believe to be appropriate. In those circumstances, we felt that the existing wording of subsection (7) was too wide. The Government have responded helpfully to that, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister unpack new subsection (7). The lettering and numbering of it is rather interesting and quite novel, but no one is against innovation in this House.
	However, I still have some concerns about the powers of the appropriate authority—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—in those circumstances. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the provisions would not prevent the agency carrying out an activity or undertaking a function if the Secretary of State deemed that he did not want it to be carried out. I believe that new subsection (7) tries to bring the process within a policy framework, by which I assume that it means a public policy framework—so measures are not merely at the whim of the Secretary of State or a set of circumstances such as a crisis, in which the material produced by the agency is too sensitive for public consumption, or some such scenario. I am assuming that is why the new subsection is worded as it is, so that measures are clearly seen to be part of a public policy framework, so that it is quite legitimate for the appropriate authority to direct the agency.
	We need reassurance on that point. The original amendment, Amendment No. 6, was designed to ensure that the Secretary of State could not limit the agency in the exercise of a function that the agency considered appropriate, for that very reason. I beg to move.

Earl Howe: My Lords, it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge the Minister's efforts to respond to concerns that I and others raised in Grand Committee. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am sorry that he has not felt able to go just a little further. None the less, I shall listen to his remarks with particular care.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, a number of us felt that while default powers are one thing—and certainly an understandable feature of a Bill of this kind—a widely drawn power of direction raised the possibility of Ministers making use of that power as a regular mechanism by which to steer the agency's activities from a distance. The Minister assured us that that was not the intention, which I accept; but the existing wording is nevertheless widely permissive.
	As amended in the way now proposed by the Government, the power becomes much more circumscribed, which is decidedly welcome. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about including a duty to have regard to government policy; if I were honest, I would wish that that had been omitted, but no doubt the Minister will tell me that it is essential. It is to be hoped that that power will be used sparingly, if at all.
	As regards the other amendments, I thank the Minister for taking on board the main thrust of my concerns as he has.

Lord Warner: My Lords, Clause 4(7) of the Bill gives each of the appropriate authorities a power to direct the agency as to the exercise of its functions. As noble Lords have said, concerns were expressed about the unlimited nature of the power. I undertook to reflect on whether the provision could be tightened up so that the power could be deployed only when Ministers had a genuine concern that the agency might not be performing its functions properly. I hope that the amendment which the Government have now brought forward meets the concerns expressed, and I am encouraged in that hope by the remarks made by noble Lords.
	In practice, I do not believe that there has been much between us on this point. We all agreed that there were circumstances in which it would be desirable to direct the agency, and I made the point that we did not envisage that we would direct the agency frequently. The amendment which we produced makes the position much clearer than it was before.
	New subsection (7B) provides a power to direct that is available only when the appropriate authority considers that the agency is failing to a significant extent to discharge any of its functions, or is failing to discharge any of its functions properly. The power enables the appropriate authority to give such a direction as it thinks appropriate for remedying that failure. New subsections (7) and (7A) provide that the appropriate authority should be able to direct the agency to have regard to the policies of the authority, and that the agency must comply with any such direction. These provisions will enable an appropriate authority to identify aspects of its policy which the agency must take into account. That could be relevant to judgments as to whether the agency is failing to a significant extent to discharge a function properly.
	Both elements of the amendment reflect approaches which were taken in last Session's legislation on the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection—now popularly known as the Healthcare Commission. Section 131 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 provides that,
	"in exercising any of its functions the CSCI must have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct in writing".
	Section 130 makes similar provision in relation to the Healthcare Commission.
	Section 132 of the 2003 Act provides that,
	"where the Secretary of State considers that the CHAI is to a significant extent . . . failing to discharge any of its functions under this Act; or . . . failing properly to discharge any of those functions; he may give a direction",
	to the commission.
	Similarly, Section 133 provides for directions to CSCI where the Secretary of State considers that it is to a significant extent failing to discharge any of its functions or to discharge them properly.
	A reference was made in Grand Committee to the fact that NHS foundation trusts are not subject to such a power of direction by the Secretary of State. That is true. However, there is a power, in Section 23 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, for the independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts to require a foundation trust to take certain action. If the regulator is satisfied that an NHS foundation trust is contravening, or failing to comply with, any term of its authorisation or any requirement imposed on it under any enactment and that the contravention or failure is significant, he may by a notice to the trust require it to do, or not to do, specified things or things of a specified description within a specified period.
	Clause 4(8), as amended by the government amendment, would continue to provide a default power for an appropriate authority if the agency failed to comply with a direction about remedying a failure.
	We consider that a default power is necessary where a body is providing front-line services, particularly where, as with the agency, it is the only body of its kind. Similarly, Section 24(7) of the Food Standards Act provides:
	"If the Agency fails to comply with any directions under this section, the authority giving the directions may give effect to them (and for that purpose may exercise any power of the Agency)".
	There is also a power in Section 84A of the National Health Service Act 1977 which allows for intervention orders to be made in relation to a failing NHS body. There is no default power for CHAI or CSCI, but those bodies carry out inspections and reviews. They are not in the front line of service provision in the way that the agency will be.
	I have set out this context at some length because I am trying to show that, in framing these amendments, we have tried to take account of recent practice in circumscribing the Secretary of State's powers to issue directions in a meaningful way which does not go too far but preserves his right, in particular circumstances, to exercise a discretion. That is what we are trying to do in these amendments. The power to direct the agency to take account of policy, about which noble Lords have raised concerns, could not be used in that way. In the Bill Parliament entrusts the agency with functions without providing for it to be micromanaged by directions. These amendments are very circumscribed. I hope that noble Lords will accept that we have tried to respond to the concerns expressed in Committee.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what was effectively an introduction and a reply. He laid down a barrage of legislative provision that to some degree created a great deal of smoke around the target, as barrages often do. I am not sure whether in the middle of the smoke there was not something dimly perceptible that we need to tease out on Third Reading.
	I do not think that there is any argument between us about the default provision. The precedents that the Minister mentioned are sensible and clear. I do not believe that the wording on that goes beyond the point that it should. The argument is entirely about the policy framework within which the agency is required to work under Clause 4(7). The Minister did not mention any precedent. It may be that beneath the barrage some precedent was mentioned, but I think that he spoke only about the default powers. I think that we need a period of further reflection on whether this clause is entirely proportionate as regards the operation of the agency, whether it should be there, and whether it could be used for purposes that are not wholly legitimate.
	In view of the erudition of the barrage, we will ponder Hansard over the Easter recess, and, if necessary, return to the issue on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Warner: moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:
	Page 4, line 30, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
	"(7) The appropriate authority may direct the Agency to have regard, in exercising any of its functions, to such aspects of the policy of the authority as the authority directs.
	(7A) The Agency must comply with any direction under subsection (7).
	(7B) If the appropriate authority thinks that the Agency is to a significant extent—
	(a) failing to discharge any of its functions, or
	(b) failing to discharge any of its functions properly,
	it may (after relevant consultation) give the Agency such a direction as it thinks appropriate for remedying that failure." Page 4, line 32, leave out "the direction" and insert "a direction under subsection (7B)"
	Page 4, line 33, leave out from "may" to end of line 34 and insert ", instead of the Agency, take such action as it thinks appropriate to remedy the failure"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Earl Howe: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 4, line 35, at beginning insert "Subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29),"

Earl Howe: My Lords, when I tabled this amendment in Grand Committee, I explained that my concern about Clause 4(9) as drafted was that it appeared to give an unfettered power to the agency to disclose personal, non-anonymised data to anyone with whom it finds itself co-operating. The Minister in reply took me by surprise by saying that there was no reason to think that personal identified data would be passed across by the agency and that therefore my amendment was unnecessary. He has now very helpfully written to me to correct that answer, since, as he says in his letter, there is now a recognition that in some circumstances personal data would be exchanged.
	I had always assumed that an exchange of this type of information would be necessary in certain circumstances, in particular those relating to infectious disease control. I have no problem with it where it is clearly in the public interest. My only concern is that there is nothing in the subsection that pays even the smallest degree of lip service to the key principles of data protection, chief of which perhaps is proportionality. What it says is that:
	"The disclosure of information to or by the Agency . . . does not breach any restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed)".
	That seems to me a very broad power, which could be interpreted as overriding common law duties of confidentiality. There is absolutely no mention of the public interest or of the kinds of circumstances in which disclosure might be allowable. Without a qualifier of this type, individuals may well start to wonder, when they go to see their doctor, whether and to what extent private information on their medical files might be revealed and to whom. Fears of that kind tend to undermine trust and confidence between doctor and patient. In Grand Committee, the Minister spoke about the interrelationship between the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. I do not doubt that there is a balance between the two statutes; but as I understand the Data Protection Act, it already contains provisions that enable the free exchange of data where the public interest demands that such data should be disclosed.
	I would remind noble Lords that Clause 5, which covers the duty of co-operation, is unspecific in that it does not list the bodies with which the agency must co-operate. We all understand the reasons for avoiding lists in primary legislation—the government amendment that we are shortly to debate will eliminate one list altogether—but the necessary consequence of avoiding such lists in this Bill is that the number of bodies or persons to whom the duty of co-operation will apply is technically unlimited. That means that the number of bodies and persons lawfully entitled to be in receipt of confidential named data is also unlimited. I am worried by that when, as here, the power to disclose is protected against any restrictions to the contrary "however imposed". The force of those last two words is, I confess, unclear to me, but at best they would appear to leave room for interpretation. That cannot be satisfactory.
	I believe that most of us would accept that there is a very simple test governing the exchange of personal data, and that is whether the other party has a need to know it. The word "need" in this context means "need in relation to the public interest". I would be much comforted if, first of all, there were some qualifying phrase or set of phrases in this subsection of the kind to which I have alluded—not necessarily as my amendment suggests, but something along those lines—and, secondly, if the Minister were to agree to issue guidance on the issue of data sharing to which all relevant parties must have regard.
	I hope that he will be able to reassure the House, perhaps in more detail than before, that the concerns I have outlined can be addressed. I beg to move.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the amendment deals with a point raised in Grand Committee. There was some confusion on the matter to which I freely acknowledge I contributed. My letter of 31 March to noble Lords recognised that there are points here that need further investigation and which, unfortunately, we have not yet been able to complete. Departments other than the Department of Health are involved. I have asked officials to ensure that we report back with a specific proposal for Third Reading. In the mean time, it may be helpful if I set out more fully what Clause 4(9) is intended to do and respond to some of the particular queries that have been raised here and in Grand Committee.
	We all recognise that the agency, in order to discharge its functions, will need to handle some sensitive information. For example, it will need to deal with medical information about individuals. Its work on preparedness against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism could also mean that it will have some information that will have implications for national security. Quite properly, sensitive information of this nature needs to be subject, as a general rule, to various restrictions on its handling.
	There will, however, be circumstances in which the agency will need to disclose information that it holds to the other bodies with which it works in order to discharge its functions effectively. There will also be circumstances in which it will need to receive information from such bodies, again in order to perform its functions effectively.
	It is because the agency, in order to discharge its functions, needs to receive and to pass on information, some of which could be subject to restrictions on handling, that Clause 4(9) is included in the Bill. As it is currently drafted, Clause 4(9) effectively disapplies from the agency restrictions on the disclosure of information; or to put it another way, Clause 4(9) enables the agency to disclose or receive information in circumstances where it would not otherwise be able to do so because, for example, of provisions in the Data Protection Act.
	I should emphasise, however, that this does not give the agency an absolute power to disclose information. Under the Bill as currently drafted, what it can do is limited in two ways. First, Clause 4(9) itself provides that the disclosure needs to be for a defined purpose: either in pursuance of a duty of co-operation under Clause 5, or in the exercise of a function which is the subject of an arrangement made by virtue of Clause 4, subsection (5)(c) or (e). Secondly, the agency will be a public authority governed by the Human Rights Act 1998 in the exercise of its public functions. It is unlawful for the agency to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. Under the Human Rights Act, any disclosure that is lawful still needs to be proportionate: that is, to be published to no more people and in no other media than necessary to enable the agency's functions to be performed effectively, for the effective protection of public health, as described at Article 8(2) of the convention. On a point raised by noble Lords in Committee, it is not necessary to write into the Bill that the Human Rights Act, or its requirements on proportionality, apply to the agency: they do, whether the Bill says so or not.
	As a result of those two qualifications, it is not the case, as was suggested in Grand Committee, that Clause 4(9) would give the agency carte blanche to disclose personal information to everyone on a local authority's pay roll. Clause 4(9) would make disclosure to a local authority lawful where disclosure was necessary under the duty of co-operation in Clause 5; but I cannot envisage circumstances in which a disclosure to all the authority's staff of information which should be kept confidential would be regarded as proportionate.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked whether Clause 4(9), as currently drafted, would override the requirements of the Data Protection Act. As I indicated earlier, the current drafting provides such an override. The noble Earl made the point in Grand Committee that,
	"the Data Protection Act does not prevent the dissemination of personal data when that is necessary in the public interest".—[Official Report, 3/3/04; col. GC 286.]
	I accept that this is a very important point, and that is why we are still considering whether Clause 4(9) needs amendment to reflect that. However, the Department of Health is not the custodian of wisdom on the Data Protection Act, and we also need to clarify further with the Health Protection Agency what the practical implications are for it of modifying Clause 4(9). I am sorry to tell your Lordships that that work has not been completed in time for Report stage.
	The agency deals with many different kinds of information, including information about the health and sexual behaviour of individuals and information about security matters in relation to bioterrorism. We need to look at each one of these in considering what provision is most suitable. We are working closely with the agency and lawyers on this, and I aim to bring forward our conclusions at Third Reading. It is not completely clear at this stage that Clause 4(9) as currently drafted is inappropriate and that is why I would ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment until we have completed further work. I shall keep him posted on the progress made and I am happy to consider his suggestion about providing guidance as a back-up to this piece of legislation.

Earl Howe: My Lords, that was a very helpful reply. Like the Minister, I regret that the Government have not had time to come to a conclusion on these issues. Nevertheless, I am grateful that Ministers are taking these matters seriously. It was helpful to hear from the Minister that, as I suspected, the clause overrides the Data Protection Act. I was not clear about that before. It is an important point. He drew our attention to the wording of subsection (9) where it states:
	"The disclosure of information to or by the Agency",
	must be,
	"for the purposes of the exercise of a function".
	I accept that those words circumscribe the power, but at the same time they do so only in a loose way. My fear is that it will be necessary for someone or some body to co-operate with the agency in a general way for the transfer of confidential information to that person or body to be lawful. I understand that proportionality applies, whatever the Bill may say. Nevertheless the cat could get out of the bag before anyone intended that to happen. It would be helpful if between now and Third Reading the Minister could keep me advised of his thinking on this matter. I am perfectly happy to wait until Third Reading for a resolution and I believe we have three weeks before that takes place. It is much better to get such matters right in the end, even though it may take some time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [Co-operation]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 5, line 3, leave out "(including local authorities)"

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I have the pleasure of introducing this formidable string of government amendments which I shall group according to their subject, starting with government Amendment No. 11. The amendment responds to a point raised in Grand Committee when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, queried why it was necessary to include a specific reference to local authorities in Clause 5.
	There are logical and historical reasons that explain why the clause was drafted this way. We were, for example, very aware that a number of the local authority responses to our 2002 consultation paper argued that we had downplayed the local authority role in health protection and needed to give clear recognition of the fact that the agency should work closely together with them.
	It remains our view that the agency needs to work together closely with local authorities, particularly in England where it will have a particular role in supporting the provision of services at local level. However, we accept that it is unhelpful that Clause 5 as currently drafted singles out local authorities alone among all the bodies with which the agency needs to co-operate. That is not the impression we intend to give. By deleting the reference, the government amendment will remove any danger of doing so.
	I turn to government Amendments Nos. 24, 25, 28 and 29. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was astonished that we did not accept those amendments in Grand Committee. I do not want to raise his blood pressure any further. We have reflected on the point he made and we are happy to make the changes that he suggested.
	I turn to Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 and 37, which provide for the agency to be placed in the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in relation to all its functions, except those that it carries out for Scottish Ministers, which will be in the jurisdiction of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. At present, the Health Protection Agency Special Health Authority is in the jurisdiction of the Health Service Commissioner for England. The National Radiological Protection Board is in the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, with the exception of functions that it carries out for the Scottish Executive, which are in the jurisdiction of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
	The Bill provides broadly for the current situation to continue, although with a change in that some functions would fall within the remit of the Health Service Commissioner for Wales. That would effectively mean four different ombudsmen: the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Health Service Commissioner for England, his equivalent for Wales and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman would all have a role in relation to the agency.
	We have discussed the approach taken in the Bill and we have taken advice from and had long conversations with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Ann Abraham, who is also the Health Service Commissioner for England and the Welsh Administration Ombudsman. We are indebted to her for her advice. Together we have all come to the conclusion that the government amendments would provide for a better approach to that in the Bill.
	We are happy to be guided by the Parliamentary Commissioner's view. She has made the point that the HPA is not an NHS body and is unlikely to provide much by way of direct care and treatment. In her view, it would not be appropriate for the Health Service Commissioner to consider complaints. We are happy that the agency, through our amendment, will fall within the remit of a single ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, with the exception of functions carried out within devolved competence in Scotland, which fall to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. That is common sense and takes account of the fact that, from the point of view of citizens, it is much simpler to keep the number of ombudsmen involved to a minimum rather than to create a possibility of confusion. I hope that noble Lords will agree.
	Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 follow from an amendment accepted in Grand Committee, which allowed the agency to receive information from medical inspectors. The amendment allows the agency to receive that information not only in relation to England, Wales and Scotland, but also in relation to Northern Ireland. The further amendment also improves the drafting. The new provision achieves the effect intended, whether it is brought into effect before or after the changes to Section 133 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to be made when Schedule 13 of last year's Health and Social Care (Community Standards and Quality) Act has commenced. As I am sure noble Lords will remember, that is the schedule that makes changes consequential on the abolition of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board.
	Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 38. A government amendment to Schedule 4 was accepted in Grand Committee, which repeals Section 77 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which in itself amends Sections 1 and 2(6) of the Radiological Protection Act 1970. Having done that on coming into force it has no further legal effect and can be removed from the statute book. Amendment No. 38 makes an equivalent change to Northern Ireland's legislation. I hope that with those explanations noble Lords will be happy to accept the government amendments.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in thanking the Minister for her explanation of the government amendments, and in particular for the first five amendments in this group. It is no small thing sitting on the Opposition Benches to have points made accepted by Ministers and officials. I am extremely grateful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Publication of information]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 5, line 30, leave out from beginning to "any" and insert "But the Agency must not publish"

Lord Warner: My Lords, the government amendment and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, aim to respond to points raised in Grand Committee. I believe that we are aiming for the same outcome, and the only issue is over the best route to our destination. I will explain briefly why my preference is for the drafting of the government amendment.
	As I explained in Grand Committee, Clause 7 gives the agency a proactive power to publish its advice and information—a power wholly consistent with our commitment to open government, which was supported by those who responded to our 2002 consultation exercise.
	However, a number of noble Lords expressed concerns about the drafting of subsection 2(c), which some saw as a sinister device that would enable Ministers to insist that the agency's decisions on publication took account of Ministers' personal preferences.
	As I tried to explain earlier, the question of whether publication is or is not in the public interest is not a matter of individual whim but has to be objectively determined. In appropriate cases, the agency may decide to consult government or any other public body about the public interest. However, under Clause 7 the power to publish rests with the agency itself, whomever it chooses to consult.
	The reference to the public interest is important, as without it full effect might not be given to the right of respect for private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights. Article 8 is a qualified right: any interference must first be in accordance with the law and must also meet a public interest in a proportionate way. Convention rights are given effect in domestic law by a mixture of statute and common law. Although the HPA as a public authority is obliged by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act to act compatibly with human rights, there is a danger that without subsection 2(c) the unlimited power to publish in Clause 7(1) might be interpreted as overriding common law duties of confidentiality.
	The reference in subsection 2(c) to the public interest balances the references to duties in statute. To omit it might imply that common law duties can be ignored, which in turn could cast doubt on whether full effect is given to article 8. But its inclusion is in no way intended to allow the appropriate authorities unduly to influence the exercise of the HPA's power.
	Nevertheless, in response to concerns, I have looked at the drafting again and the government amendment now makes it clear—I hope that noble Lords will agree—that it is the agency that has the power to publish unless publication is not in the public interest.
	I am getting in my bit of retaliation, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I recognise that the other amendment would deal with that point by following the wording in the Food Standards Act. We have nothing against that. I just mention to noble Lords that it was drafted over an interval of five years ago to meet the needs of different bodies with different functions. In the case of the HPA, we live in an era of bioterrorism and publication might not be in the public interest for reasons other than as arise from considerations of confidentiality. That is my slight quibble with the alternative versions. I beg to move.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, which are grouped with government Amendment No. 12. Before turning to the precise matters, it is worth noting that across an increasing number of government Bills the issue of how personal data and sensitive information are dealt with is becoming more and more important. Therefore, I eagerly anticipate the opinion that the Minister has suggested will be with us before the next stage of the Bill.
	In a wider sense we are returning to some of the arguments that were attached to Amendment No. 10. We all accept that the work of the agency necessitates the giving and the receipt of sensitive information. We all accept that there will be times when publication of information is detrimental to health protection. However, we similarly believe that a critical part of the efficacy of the agency is its ability to engender trust with other agencies and with the public. The Minister was absolutely right to get his retaliation. We have used the food standards Act as the basis for the amendment that we have before us because we believe that it gets the balance right in terms of disclosure of information. We have had to do so because there is still no satisfactory definition of what is and is not in the public interest.
	In preparing the amendments that we are discussing, we on these Benches consulted the HPA website. If you follow the links through to freedom of information, you come across the Health Protection Agency code of practice on openness, and a very good document it is. It states:
	"We will aim to publish, as swiftly as practicable, any substantive information or advice we provide to others, either actively or in response to specific requests. Advice on largely local matters may be issued in conjunction with or through partner organisations, such as Primary Care Trusts.
	"The HPA will make publicly available results, analyses and conclusions in as timely a manner as possible, especially when there are implications for protecting health and will lead to action by the HPA or others".
	The agency goes on to explain circumstances in which it will not do that. It also goes on to explain how one can register a complaint about the lack of publicly available information.
	Having read that, we believe that Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are much closer to the actual working practice of the agency than that of the Government. The Minister said that we were all trying to get to the same place. I think that is true but the architecture of this particular part of the measure does not make that apparent at all. We believe that the amendment that stands in our name and that of other noble Lords is the route to follow to get to the position which the agency probably knows it is in whereby it makes decisions on every piece of information regarding whether or not it is in the public interest for it to be published. As I say, we on these Benches prefer our wording to that of the Government.

Earl Howe: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in all that she has said.
	One of the other attractive features of our amendment is that it makes clear that it is the agency which makes the judgment on whether or not to withhold information in the public interest. The Bill is not specific on that point even with the amendment that the Government are now proposing, although in Grand Committee the Minister told us that that, indeed, was the intention.
	In our earlier debate, my noble friend Lord Fowler expressed a very valid concern, which was that a government at some point in the future might regard publication of certain information as embarrassing and thus prohibit it on the grounds of the public interest. If it is, indeed, the agency which has the prerogative to decide whether or not to withhold publication, let that be spelt out on the face of the Bill. Similarly, why not make it absolutely clear that the public interest is normally served by publication?
	I come back to a point I made in Grand Committee. What is at stake here is public confidence. The more transparent the agency is, the more confidence the public will have in it. I still think that we need something rather more explicit than the wording in this part of the clause. I hope that the Minister will not be impervious to that point if we return to the matter at Third Reading.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
	Clause 8 [Transfer of property and staff etc.]:

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 14A:
	Page 6, line 2, leave out "one or more schemes" and insert "a scheme"

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14A and 15A respond to a grammatical worry that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, raised in Grand Committee and which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raises again resolutely in these amendments.
	I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is of the view that the wording "one or more schemes" is incorrect. Tempting though it is to engage with him at length on this, I shall resist. As promised in Grand Committee, we have considered the point further—indeed, we have wrestled with it—and we are still to be persuaded that the Bill as drafted is incorrect grammatically. However, in a spirit of co-operation and good will, we have responded to the noble Earl's concerns by means of the government Amendments Nos. 14A and 15A. These replace "one or more schemes" with "a scheme". I think the noble Earl is bound to agree that that is an elegant solution. It is supported by the fact that Section 6(c) of the Interpretation Act states that words in the singular include the plural, so the new wording in the government amendments will allow the appropriate authorities to make just as many schemes as before.
	I turn now to government Amendment No. 17. The Bill gives the agency a number of functions, set out in Clause 2(l) and Clause 3(l) and (2). It also provides for the agency to be directed to have, or to exercise, other functions. This second group of functions, once given to the agency, may in principle subsequently be removed from it. The government amendment is needed to take account of the possibility that functions—and the staff involved in delivering them—may be transferred from the agency.
	Noble Lords will be familiar with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations, also known as TUPE. The purpose of TUPE is to ensure that the employment rights of employees are not removed following the transfer of work in which they are engaged. Indeed, if an employee spends more than 50 to 60 per cent of his time carrying out the work which is to transfer, he should transfer with the work. However, the TUPE regulations do not always apply to transfers within the public sector. To cover those situations Cabinet Office guidance provides, broadly, that where, as a matter of law, TUPE does not apply, for example on the transfer of an administrative function between different parts of the public sector, protection equivalent to that provided by TUPE should be provided. To ensure this, relevant staff should be transferred legislatively.
	The government amendment provides for an appropriate authority to make a scheme on the transfer of a function from the agency pursuant to Clause 2 or 3. The scheme would provide, as at paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, that such a transfer does not break the continuity of an individual's employment.
	Before making the scheme, the appropriate authority must consult each person or body that it must consult in respect of the variation or revocation of the direction or order under Clause 2 or 3.
	In bringing forward the amendment, I should make clear that neither we nor any of the other appropriate authorities have any expectation at present that such functions would be transferred from the agency. But if such an eventuality were to arise, none of us would want those staff to be disadvantaged, and the amendment provides for that.
	In our anxiety to put the language right in the text of the Bill, we overlooked the fact that in the amendment that we brought forward forensic examination must have been insufficient. Clearly, we shall have to table yet another amendment at the next stage and we can have this debate again at Third Reading. With that proviso, I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Earl Howe: My Lords, may I be the first to offer two or more cheers for the government amendments and to thank the Minister for the strenuous efforts that she has made to resolve this extremely important matter? I look forward to a further debate on the subject at Third Reading.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 15A:
	Page 6, line 19, leave out "one or more schemes" and insert "a scheme"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Baroness Andrews: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
	"(6A) If the appropriate authority varies or revokes a direction or order under section 2 or 3, it may make one or more schemes for the transfer of the rights and liabilities of the Agency specified in subsection (6B) to a relevant transferee.
	(6B) The rights and liabilities are the rights and liabilities relating to the contract of employment of any individual whose employment, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, relates wholly or principally to the Agency's exercise of a removed function.
	(6C) A removed function is a function which is the subject of the direction or order which the appropriate authority varies or revokes.
	(6D) A relevant transferee is an entity which, following the variation or revocation of the direction or order, is to exercise the removed function.
	(6E) The appropriate authority must not make a scheme under subsection (6A) unless it first consults, in respect of the scheme, each person or body that it must consult in respect of the variation or revocation of the direction or order under section 2 or 3."

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I apologise for wearying the House but I have a small problem with new subsection (6D) in Amendment No. 17; namely, it suddenly states:
	"A relevant transferee is an entity".
	To me, a transferee is human and an entity is not. Would the noble Baroness be good enough to go back to the draftsman and clarify that point? I am sure that I have bounced her and that she will be unable to answer now.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, since the interpretation has stood us in such good stead in relation to "scheme" or "schemes", I shall certainly go back to see what it says about the word "entity" and whether there is a human connotation to it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 18:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
	"HEALTH CARE PROVISION: STANDARDS
	(1) In so far as any health care is provided by or for the Agency it is to be treated for the purposes of the standards provisions as an English NHS body.
	(2) Health care must be construed in accordance with section 45 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003.
	(3) The standards provisions are Chapters 2, 3 and 10 of Part 2 of that Act.
	(4) The references in section 53 of that Act (failings of bodies) to special measures are, in relation to the Agency, references to anything that may be done by the appropriate authority in pursuance of section 4 above.
	(5) Section 57 of that Act (studies as to economy and efficiency, etc.) does not apply to the Agency.
	(6) This section does not extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland."

Lord Warner: My Lords, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act provides, among other things, for the establishment of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, which came into existence on 1 April 2004.
	The Health Protection Agency, in its current incarnation as a special health authority, falls within the scope of the bodies which the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection is responsible for inspecting. We want the functions which the HPA currently carries out to remain within the scope of what the commission inspects when the agency is reconstituted as a non-departmental public body. We made that clear in the report that we produced on the outcome of the 2002 consultation exercise.
	The government amendment provides for the agency to be subject to review and inspection by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. It does so, among other things, by applying to the HPA the provisions in the 2003 Act which allow the Secretary of State to prepare and publish statements of standards in relation to the provisions of healthcare, as set out in Section 46 of that Act. I beg to move.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, perhaps I may seize the opportunity to ask the Minister why proposed new subsection (5) is included in the amendment.

Lord Warner: My Lords, my brief does not—says he fumbling his way through it—adequately cover that particular point, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Health Protection Agency]:

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 9, line 9, at end insert ", one of whom is an employee of the equivalent public health organisation in Wales"

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the amendment concerns the membership of the agency. Indeed, page 9 of the Bill lists the persons who are members of the agency. Paragraph (d) of sub-paragraph (1) refers to the prescribed number of executive members, and the point of the amendment is that we want one of the employees of the equivalent public health organisation in Wales to be a member of the executive.
	I am moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who apologises for her absence. She, along with other Members of this House, is currently in Paris for the celebrations of the entente cordiale with the Queen and the President of France.
	In Committee on 3 March, as reported in Hansard at col. GC 309, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, agreed that further reflection on this amendment should occur. The reasons for the amendment are clear. It is essential for the health protection services in England and Wales to be in harmony, delivered through a partnership of the Health Protection Agency and the National Public Health Service for Wales.
	The National Public Health Service incorporates a specialist health protection function and includes integrated microbiology, communicable disease control, environmental health and epidemiological services. As well as protecting the population of Wales, those units also provide specialist reference laboratory services for the UK, processing more than 23,000 specimens from England last year.
	Research being undertaken by the National Public Health Service is also contributing to policy and strategic development in the two countries. The Welsh service also runs the zoonosis surveillance unit for England and Wales. The Health Protection Agency reciprocates, providing specialist services for Wales.
	Disease does not respect political or geographical boundaries. If we are to ensure the long-term health of the nation, it is essential that the services on this island co-operate and work in harmony. They must have common strategies and policies, common standards and integrated information-sharing processes. Combined representation at each organisational level is required.
	The National Public Health Service for Wales does not have a specialist board as it is part of an NHS trust. However, it has invited representation from the Health Protection Agency on to committees at all levels of its management structure, including its executive management team. Organisational arrangements need to reflect the requirement of both agencies to serve the populations of both countries and ensure that their programmes are properly aligned; otherwise, there is potential for them to work out of synchrony.
	A non-executive director, although playing a key role on the board, would not have a first-hand grasp of the detail in the wide spectrum of strategic and operational issues that need to be addressed. A presence at executive level on the board of the Health Protection Agency would ensure that the service in Wales continued to develop to meet the needs of England, too. It would ensure that there was integrated strategic planning, allowing long-term service growth, and a co-ordinated rapid response at local level to biological threats, both infectious and malicious through terrorism. It would maximise cost-efficiency and assist in maintaining the co-ordination of planning between the two organisations.
	There is a history of good working relationships, maintained through professionalism of the staff across political boundaries. The organisational structures must complement and reinforce that to ensure the most effective health protection. I have in my hand a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which refers, in part, to the upshot of what I have just said. Indeed, it refers to co-operation between the HPA and the National Public Health Service for Wales. In that, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, states that there are close links at working level. In particular I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, welcomes the giving to each other of observer status on the boards of the two organisations. As the HPA has confirmed, it is happy to do so in the case of a representative of the National Public Health Service for Wales.
	That is welcome but we still feel very much that there is a need for an executive board member. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. I beg to move.

Lord Fowler: My Lords, Amendment No. 20 in this group, tabled in my name, touches on corporate governance. The point of the amendment is to ensure that only people of independent judgment are appointed to the board of the Health Protection Agency. The reasons for that are clear. First, the public rely on the impartial reports of the agency. We do not want any possible interference with that process and certainly do not want political placemen on the board. Secondly, as Ministers will know, in the outside world of industry great attention is currently being paid to issues of corporate governance and in particular to ensuring that boards of companies are made up of men and women of independent judgment who will not do simply what the executives want.
	I have to admit that there was a rather special reason for tabling the amendment, even, perhaps a little mischief. Back in 1998, when I was shadow Home Secretary, I was approached by the then Home Secretary, Mr Straw. He explained who he was appointing as chairman of the Youth Justice Board. I cannot remember his precise words but they were to the effect that it might look like a party appointment but the new chairman was not really a figure of party politics. I observe that that non-party political figure has now developed into the noble Lord, Lord Warner, the Minister in charge of the passage of the Bill through this House. However, I shall be fair, as I always am, to the Minister. I make no personal complaint about the way he chaired that board, although I have to admit that I had moved on by the time that he really got going.
	That raised, for me at any rate, a general principle; that is, that we do not want outright government supporters—supporters of any government—to be chairing boards which are scrutinising the policy-making process or at least part of it. I raised that point in Committee and received what I regard as a "double whammy" reply. The first page stated that it was from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Warner, and the last page was signed by Kay Andrews. So, I think I can take it that it was the collective view of the Government on this issue.
	The letter stated, rather oddly, that neither the NHS Appointments Commission nor the Office of Commissioner for Public Appointments recognises the concept of political impartiality. That seemed to me to be a good start. However, it then conceded that since 1998 there have been concerns that the number of politically active appointees within the health service is higher than in any other group, and that in 1999 the Commissioner for Public Appointments set up a scrutiny group to address growing concerns that increasing numbers of politically active Labour Party supporters were being appointed to positions in the NHS. The group found examples where political associations had been a decisive factor in candidates' appointments and that such appointments had not always been made on merit. That is not my view; that is what the commissioner said.
	The commissioner also concluded that the process had been politicised by systematically inviting Members of Parliament and local authorities to nominate candidates at the start of the process and seeking MPs' comments on short-listed candidates for the chair.
	The Ministers then went on to quote figures, which I found curious. They said, obviously quite rightly, that in 1999–2000 around 23.7 per cent of the appointments made in the National Health Service were political appointments; 15.98 per cent were Labour; 4.1 per cent were Conservative and 2.28 per cent were Liberal Democrat. The Government then set up the NHS Appointments Commission and stated that that effectively resolved these problems.
	Figures were then quoted from the 2002–03 report, which seems to me to do anything but show that these problems have been resolved. They show that in 2002–03, 26.1 per cent of the National Health Service appointments were political; 17.18 per cent were now Labour; 4.5 per cent were Conservative, and 3.2 per cent were Liberal Democrats. That requires explanation.
	I am not sure that the reply that this is simply a function of the number of applications is satisfactory. That begs the question how many have been prompted to reply, and also raises the question of the disincentive inside the system for knowing exactly what takes place. As far as concerns the Health Protection Agency, I am glad that only one of the 12 non-executive directors is politically active, who is apparently a Conservative. It seems to me that what the Ministers are relying on and what is their argument in precis is that, in effect, "Dreadful things are happening in the National Health Service generally. All kinds of Labour appointments are being made, far too many proportionately but you will be glad to know that as far as the Health Protection Agency is concerned this is an exception to the rule and everything there is hunky dory". If that is their case, it is a curious one to put before the House. I hope that that is not an unfair summary of the Ministers' argument. However, it seems to me that thanks to the Ministers, a rather bigger issue has been revealed than I thought existed hitherto.
	I should be grateful to the Minister for further clarification of the position. However, in the mean time I can think of no objection to placing in the Bill a requirement as regards appointments to the board of the Health Protection Agency that members should be people of independent judgment.

Earl Howe: My Lords, my Amendment No. 26 is pre-empted by government amendment No. 25A. However, I hope I shall be allowed to speak to it in this group and I assure the Minister that I do so in a spirit of entente cordiale within this Chamber, if not the kind to be found accompanying the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
	In Grand Committee the Government amended paragraph 23(2) of Schedule 1 in a way that in my view introduced an unnecessary ambiguity. Surely, what is intended by the paragraph must be that if the Auditor General for Wales wishes to exercise the power set out in sub-paragraph (1) he must first consult the Comptroller and Auditor General and that the same duty applies in equivalent circumstances to the Auditor General for Scotland. As amended, the wording appears to say that neither the Auditor General for Wales nor the Auditor General for Scotland may act individually unless both have consulted the Comptroller and Auditor General. Surely, that cannot be the intention, and I believe that here as elsewhere we should remove all semblance of double meaning. My amendment is designed to address that difficulty but since I tabled it the Government have tabled their own, which, though adopting a different approach, I am delighted to welcome.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, a spirit of entente cordiale is breaking out all over. I wish I knew the Welsh equivalent. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, drew a short straw. It is a shame that he could not have gone with the noble Baroness to Paris, instead of moving her amendment; but we miss her when she is not here.
	I start by saying that I fully endorse the view that there needs to be close harmony—a typically Welsh expression—between the Welsh and the English services. We are very keen to see the good working relationships which already exist in this field continue. Our problem is that we are not persuaded that the amendment provides the best way of achieving that. Perhaps I may spend a little time explaining the nature of the executive appointment which the Welsh Assembly seeks.
	The Bill currently provides for two sorts of appointment to the agency. I stress that the arrangements were agreed between the devolved administrations and the Government before they were introduced.
	First, there are the appointments of the chair and the non-executives. These are public appointments made on merit, after open competition, as required by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Such appointments are intended to bring people with a variety of expertise on to the agency's board. The noble Lord outlined the sorts of expertise that are already present and at work in the Health Protection Agency and in the National Public Health Service in Wales. It is because they can be appointed on this basis that they will bring—we are convinced—great influence and power in terms of the strategic direction of the agency. But—as the title suggests—non-executives do not have executive responsibilities for running the agency.
	The Secretary of State—under Section 187 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003—and the National Assembly for Wales—under Schedule 1, paragraph 2, of the Bill—will also have the power, if they wish, to delegate their appointment functions to a special health authority—in practice, the NHS Appointments Commission. But again, the requirements for open competition will still apply.
	The Bill already gives the National Assembly for Wales the right to appoint a non-executive member of the agency. The noble Lord suggested that that was a rather narrow opportunity. I would dispute that. I think that we would want to see precisely that sort of scope being brought by Welsh scientists and medical expertise. It may be worth mentioning that one of the non-executives appointed by the Secretary of State to the board of the HPA Special Health Authority works for the health service in Northern Ireland and is bringing in that kind of expertise.
	Secondly, there are the appointments of the chief executive and the executive members of the agency. These are not public appointments. They are not made by Ministers or by the NHS Appointments Commission and will be made by the chair and the non-executives within the framework set by the Bill. The Bill provides for the chief executive to be a member of the agency, but it will be for the agency itself to decide whom to appoint as its chief executive.
	In the case of the executive members, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State, after consultation with the devolved administrations, will prescribe in regulations a number of executive members. Once he has prescribed a number, or a range of numbers, it will be for the chair and the non-executives to decide which members of the agency's staff they wish to appoint as executive members. Their decisions on this will be bound up with the way they decide the agency should be structured—that is by definition to do with running the agency—and what the top-level posts in it should be. In other words, the chief executive and the executive directors are appointed to the agency's board on the basis of the executive responsibilities that they hold within the agency itself.
	At this point, I should add that in principle there is a third way. The noble Lord has alluded to it. It is possible for a person to participate in the activities of the agency board as an observer. I know that that has been welcomed. I should say that observer status can bring great value and influence to the board. Many bodies already have them and recognise their value. An observer is not, of course, responsible for running the body but he or she can in principle play a very active role, bringing to it a range of expertise and advice and contributing to and influencing discussions.
	The agency, which will be established by the Bill and the HPA Special Health Authority, are, of course, separate bodies, but their functions have much in common. It is worth noting that the special health authority has already invited the National Public Health Service for Wales to send an observer. We see that as a very effective way to make sure that issues such as lack of co-ordination and lack of understanding can be overcome. So we have these alternatives—a non-executive member and an observer.
	I accept that the Bill does not do what the noble Lord has argued. It does not provide that an employee of the NPHSW can be appointed as an executive member of the agency, unless that person was seconded to the agency, in which case he would hold executive responsibilities there. Our strong sense is—and we have thought about the issue and had correspondence about it—that it is not appropriate that the Bill should provide for a person who holds no executive responsibilities in the agency to be appointed as an executive member of the agency
	There are three reasons: first, executive members are responsible for running the agency, but they are not there to represent the views of another body. In fact the noble Lord used the term "representation". It is possible that the agency and the NPHSW might take different views on something. In what position would that place the representative?
	Secondly, it is for the chair and the non-executives to decide what executive appointments they wish to make. If we were to suggest what we wanted to see, we, as a government, would be accused of micro-management. There is no greater slur on any government. We spend a lot of time resisting that.
	Thirdly, we should say that we have other reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in the course of our debates has tabled a number of amendments, which have usefully reminded us of the importance of following proper appointment procedures. If the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, were to be accepted, I strongly suspect that some might see it as a way of bending the rules away from open competition which would be required for a non-executive appointment.
	We want to achieve close working relationships. We are very clear that we want to support that in all forms. There is a very strong case for close links. For example, I understand that the memorandum of understanding between the HPA Special Health Authority and the NPHSW is close to being finalised. I am sure that that will set out the way in which these things should work.
	All these measures can be pursued without the need for primary legislation. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and will accept that, having given the issue careful thought, we must beg to disagree on that.
	I turn to Amendment No. 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. It just proves what a big mistake it is to show any generosity and especially to put it in a letter and have it read back to you—selectively, I should say.
	There are a few things that I want to say. Indeed, to prove my case I pray in aid my noble friend, who to all intents and purposes is one of the most independent Members of the House, even though he sits on the Front Bench—and an excellent appointment it was.
	Amendment No. 20 would write into primary legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that all appointees to the agency should be of independent judgment. We support that. We are fully behind that amendment, but we do not believe that it is either necessary or workable in practice. It is unnecessary because we are already fully committed to following the guidelines issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The core principle of those guidelines is that appointments should be on merit. The appointments process is intended to ensure that people who have the necessary skills and expertise have the opportunity to make that contribution. Of course, different appointments call for different qualities. I would be surprised if the term "merit" did not generally require a person to show independent judgment.
	Secondly, it is not clear at what stage the Secretary of State would be expected to form his view. Would he wait for the appointments panel to make recommendations on merit, and then substitute his own view of who was of independent judgment, or who was of more independent judgment?
	In the context of Clause 7, we discussed the suspicions that some feel about the possibility that Ministers might substitute their views for those formed by independent bodies. Leaving aside the uncertainties over exactly what is meant, I do not think that the devolved administrations would welcome the role that this amendment would give to the Secretary of State. Those administrations have the power to appoint a non-executive member. Would this amendment allow the Secretary of State to veto the appointments? The sensible approach is to leave the detailed requirements for appointments to the Commissioner for Public Appointments—it is his job—rather than to write them into the Bill. I have every confidence that the systems are in place.
	I am glad that the noble Lord had such sport with our letter. The one thing that he did not quote was that the Appointments Commission commissioned the Nuffield Institute to look into the issue further. It noted that a larger proportion of Labour supporters were being appointed, but that this was not disproportionate to the number of applications received that declared political activity for the Labour Party. Therefore, the institute concluded that there was no bias. I remember saying in Committee that there is a difference between impartiality and independence. It is difficult to find people who do not have political views. We had a slight reprise of that discussion.
	On the noble Earl's Amendment No. 26, I am glad that we were able to come to the conclusion that the text, as it was, was confusing. It was not clear in which order, or at what point, people would have to consult. Our substitution for that is much clearer. It makes the process crystal clear in relation to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I welcome the spirit in which the Minister's reply has been given, and the arguments, which have been put in such a beguiling way. The issues of the members of the board and of the HPA, and of non-executive and executive members, have been covered extensively by the Minister's reply. We will study the Minister's reply in some detail.
	I repeat briefly something that I said during my speech, that the service in Wales provides specialist reference laboratory services and process over 23,000 specimens from England each year. It also runs the zoonoses surveillance unit for the whole of England and Wales. That makes a case for an executive status. Perhaps the Minister can think about that.
	I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will study the response in great detail. It may or may not find its way back here at a later stage of the Bill. I refer in passing to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord on the independence of members of the HPA. He made some telling points about that, and the jury is still out on the assurances that all is now well. I have no doubt that some new statistics will appear, which the noble Lord will analyse further. However, we will consider the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]

Lord Warner: moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
	Page 12, line 34, leave out "it" and insert "the Department"
	Page 12, line 35, leave out "it" and insert "the Assembly"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Elton: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 26.

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 25A:
	Page 13, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
	"( ) A requirement under this paragraph must not be made unless the person proposing to make the requirement first consults the Comptroller and Auditor General."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]

Lord Warner: moved Amendments Nos. 28 and 29:
	Page 14, line 16, leave out "it" and insert "the Department"
	Page 14, line 23, leave out "it" and insert "the Assembly"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Amendments]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 37:
	Page 16, line 25, leave out "In the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967," and insert—
	"( ) The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 is amended as follows." Page 16, line 27, at end insert—
	"( ) In the Notes to Schedule 2, after paragraph 11 there is inserted the following paragraph—
	"12 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the Health Protection Agency.
	(2) No investigation is to be conducted in relation to any action taken by or on behalf of the Agency in the exercise in or as regards Scotland of any function to the extent that the function is exercisable within devolved competence (within the meaning of section 54 of the Scotland Act 1998)."" Page 18, line 26, leave out paragraph 13.
	Page 19, line 18, leave out "for sub-paragraph (v) there is substituted the following sub-paragraph" and insert "after sub-paragraph (v) there is inserted "or""
	Page 19, line 20, leave out "(v)" and insert "(vi)"
	Page 19, line 21, leave out "for sub-paragraph (iii) there is substituted the following sub-paragraph" and insert "after sub-paragraph (iii) there is inserted "or""
	Page 19, line 23, leave out "(iii)" and insert "(iv)"
	Page 19, line 34, leave out from beginning to "(persons" and insert—
	"19 (1) The Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 7 (matters which may be investigated: restrictions), after subsection (6) there is inserted—
	"(6A) The Ombudsman must not investigate action taken by or on behalf of the Health Protection Agency in the exercise in or as regards Scotland of any function to the extent that the function is not exercisable within devolved competence (within the meaning of section 54 of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46))."
	(3) In Schedule 2"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Repeals]:

Lord Warner: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 20, line 22, at end insert—
	
		
			 "Health and Safety at Work  (Northern Ireland) Order  1978 (S.I. 1978/1039 (N.I. 9)) Article 52" 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 March be approved.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, on 15 October 2002, Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 came into force, thereby suspending devolved government in Northern Ireland. Under paragraph 1 of the schedule to that Act, there is a power to legislate by Order in Council. That power was limited for the first six months of suspension, but can be extended for a period of six months at a time. The House agreed an extension of these powers for a second period of six months in September last year. This third order provides for a further renewal of these powers—for six months from 14 April 2004.
	They are a regrettable necessity given the suspension arrangements. The Government—with the Irish Government and political parties in Northern Ireland—have been working hard since suspension first came about to restore the devolved institution. These efforts have not yet met with success. Nevertheless, we remain committed to securing the restoration of devolved government on a stable and inclusive basis. As soon as we have achieved this, the powers we are renewing today—with the other powers relating to devolution—will revert to the devolved Assembly and Northern Ireland Ministers.
	In the mean time, the order we are considering today is, as I said, a regrettable necessity. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4 March be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for bringing the order today. I am afraid I totally agree with her. There really can be no arguments against today's order. Those who follow Northern Ireland affairs will be only too aware that there has been considerable activity in recent weeks within the Northern Ireland portfolio and within the Province of Northern Ireland, but ending with little progress—and possibly even with some regression.
	We have had continued reports of paramilitary activities, both from loyalists and the IRA, balanced about one-on-one every week. We have had the pain of the awful mistake—which I referred to last time I was at the Dispatch Box—about Weston Park and the reporting of Cory, which is not going to solve anything. The Chief Constable made it quite clear that he does not have the resources to do retrospective investigations. The Government have now set up at least three—likely to be four—public inquiries into the three/four murders investigated by Cory. Frankly, we are in a fairly unpleasant, unstable and difficult situation.
	We hope that the Independent Monitoring Commission is going to report very soon. I had hoped that it would have reported before we finished today—before Easter—with pressure from this side and, I believe, from the Secretary of State. It has been asked to bring its reporting forward more and more. He is still pressuring it to come forward with its latest reports, but, sadly, I do not expect any good news.
	However, let us not forget the bottom line: the reason we are here is because Sinn Fein/IRA have not yet shown sufficient courage to condemn their paramilitary colleagues to history—and, for me, the dustbin—and to join the democratic process. Her Majesty's Government must understand the depth of cynicism within that organisation and cease to use verbiage, appeasement and negotiation, and really start to toughen up on Sinn Fein/IRA so that we can have a devolved government once again in Northern Ireland.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for introducing this order. All sides of the House will be disappointed that, yet again, we are debating the further suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Along with two other noble Lords, I visited Stormont yesterday: it was gloomily empty, and that was an accurate reflection of the current state of Northern Ireland politics.
	The torpor of politics, of course, contrasts starkly with the buoyancy of the economy there. The fact that the polity and the economy are so out of balance is very unhealthy for the condition of civic society in the long run—and we are clearly in the long run.
	The Assembly has now been suspended for 18 months, and there is little prospect of its being reconvened in the near future. There is meant to be an ongoing review of the Belfast agreement, but it seems to be a desultory process. Discussions between the two Governments and the political parties have so far yielded little by way of substantive progress. Yesterday, the consensus seemed to be that nothing would happen until after the European and local elections in June; then, the marching season would be upon us, so there was little prospect of forward movement towards the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly until September. Then, it was pointed out that the spectre of a United Kingdom general election could put further negotiations on the long finger, as they say in Northern Ireland. It is an all too likely prospect and one that means, effectively, that there will be no return to devolved government in the foreseeable future, which nobody wants.
	The intransigence of Sinn Fein in refusing to repudiate categorically republican paramilitary activity and the inability of the Unionist parties to constrain loyalist paramilitary activity mean that direct rule from London, in conjunction with Dublin, will remain the system of governance for Northern Ireland. In effect, that means Civil Service rule, with the minimum scrutiny and public accountability.
	If direct rule is to be prolonged, a better system of Westminster scrutiny of Northern Ireland legislation than the one that obtains must be instituted. Little attention is given to Northern Ireland matters in another place, and the situation is not much better in this House. Does the Minister accept that a more formalised system must be adopted, consisting of regular sittings in Grand Committee, rather than the sporadic ad hoc sittings that are the current practice? For example, we spent little over an hour considering the annual budget for Northern Ireland, whereas the subject merited a debate lasting over one or two days and only after enough time had been made available for the budget to be adequately analysed before it was debated. The treatment accorded to the budget this year was purely perfunctory. That is not good enough.
	In addition to more regular and systematic use of the Grand Committee system, time must be found—say, every three months—for a general debate on the situation in Northern Ireland. As it is, we must exploit such limited opportunities as arise after Statements or when orders such as this come up to make some general observations, as I am now doing. The Statement on the Cory report last Thursday vividly illustrated the time constraints imposed on an important subject. I asked then whether your Lordships would have a further opportunity to discuss the report and the wider issues of policing and security but was told that it was a matter for the usual channels. Again, that is not good enough. The usual channels need to exercise collective intelligence and imagination with regard to Northern Ireland business.
	A month or so ago, there was a report in the Irish Times on an address given by the Secretary of State in a Dublin cathedral. He was reported as saying that the future of the peace process and the Belfast agreement lay in the power of prayer. That says a lot about the strength of his faith, of which I am jealous. However, as a plan B, it is rather more deficient. Following the report of the Independent Monitoring Commission, due to be published at the end of this month, both Governments, together with America, must renew pressure for the IRA to dissociate itself completely from republican paramilitaries. Sinn Fein must be made to realise that, especially in the current struggle against global terrorism, paramilitary activity of the kind that it has previously endorsed is totally unacceptable
	With a heavy heart and bordering on despair, we will support the approval of the order.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I must make a point that refers directly to something that the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said. The Conservative Party has given over one of its debates—on Wednesday 28 April—to discuss Northern Ireland.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, it gives me no great pleasure to address your Lordships this afternoon. I have no doubt that all will share my sense of sadness and deep regret that devolved government is not up and running in Northern Ireland and that an extension of the lengthy period of suspension and direct rule is once again necessary. However, government must continue. In the absence of a Northern Ireland executive, there are many issues that we must attend to, given the collapse of the devolved administration.
	The vacuum created by the discovery of a republican spy ring at Stormont and the IRA's continued terrorist activity both at home and in the Americas must not detract from the positive work that has been undertaken since the signing of the Belfast agreement in 1998.
	Much has been done to remove the curse of paramilitarism and sectarianism from Ulster society; to tackle racism and improve relations with the minority communities; to address economic inequality; to improve our services' infrastructure; to attract inward investment; and to maintain the excellent employment figures that the Province now has.
	A major consultation document was launched recently entitled A Shared Future, which aims to improve relationships in Northern Ireland. We know only too well what relationships need improving in our Province.
	However, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a new problem that we are now faced with in Northern Ireland: the dramatic rise of race crime and organised attempts to intimidate members of our minority communities out of the province. These communities—Chinese, Indian, Bangladeshi and others—involve people who have lived in Northern Ireland alongside other communities throughout the years of our troubles, violence and terrorism. These people are being targeted by thugs for no other reason than the colour of their skin.
	Your Lordships may be aware that just last week the home of two Filipino couples in the Killicomaine estate in Portadown was attacked, not just once but twice. The motive was undoubtedly racist, and, understandably, the couples are considering moving out. These attacks are totally unacceptable. These women have been working as qualified nurses in the nearby Craigavon hospital, helping the National Health Service and valiantly contributing to the needs and welfare of their neighbours in Northern Ireland. They should be treated with the respect that they deserve, but never should have to feel unsafe or insecure in their own homes.
	The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs has called on the UK Government to take urgent action to ensure the safety and protection of Filipino nationals and bring the perpetrators of this violence and thuggery to justice. The Philippine Foreign Secretary, Mr Delia Domingo Albert, referring to this latest incident, said:
	"These attacks against our nationals are unacceptable. They live and work in peace and harmony and make meaningful contributions to their respective communities. They deserve the full protection of the authorities of the host government".
	Along I am sure with everybody in this House, I fully concur with those comments.
	As an Ulsterman, a man proud of his homeland, and as vice-chairman of the British-Philippine All Party Parliamentary Group, I am disappointed and, indeed, frankly embarrassed, that the Philippine Government should feel the need to issue such statements.
	When did we become content to see Northern Ireland viewed as a cruel and uninviting place for ethnic minorities to live? What happened to our world-renowned friendliness, our caring nature and our generosity of spirit?
	The Government recently announced that £500,000 has been secured for the improvement of relations with minority groups in Northern Ireland. I would like to know exactly how this money is going to be spent; what consultation process is going to take place with community leaders; and, most importantly, if the Government will give a commitment that this is not a one-off grant. This money should be renewable, to ensure that any new programme of can take root, and have the financial security to have a long-term impact.
	My colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party and I would like to see these issues addressed in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and perhaps the noble Baroness could indicate whether this is on the Government's forthcoming agenda or not, and if not, why not?
	Turning to the political process and the recent talks in Hillsborough, I wish to stress the detrimental effect this period of suspension is having on the institutions and the integrity of the Belfast agreement. Given that the Prime Minister has waited a year and a half since the suspension of the Assembly, can the noble Baroness shed light on what progress has been recently made and what the Government intend to do about the new June deadline?
	We simply cannot carry on with Sinn Fein half in and half out of the democratic loop. The consequence of doing so is that the true democrats continually carry the can and pay the political price for the IRA's broken promises. It cannot come as a surprise to anyone that Northern Ireland's electorate has become exasperated by Sinn Fein's broken promises, by Sinn Fein's manipulation of the Belfast agreement and by the British Government's consistent reluctance to punish it for failing to meet its obligations under that agreement.
	My colleagues and I met our obligations under that agreement, as did the SDLP and most of the other signatories. There are two reasons for this continued period of suspension: first, devolution has failed because Sinn Fein has refused to make the transition from a terrorist organisation to a fully democratic political party. Secondly, the Government—my Government—have consistently failed to live up to their commitment to punish it should it not do so. Devolved government in Northern Ireland will simply not work in the absence of this pressure.
	Sinn Fein will not democratise out of the kindness of its heart. The incentive for it to do so can come only from the British and Irish Governments, so the sooner they get on with providing it, the better it will be for Northern Ireland.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I had not intended to speak but I should like to add a couple of points. First, I welcome the debate that we will have on 28 April, when we can say much more. Secondly, I declare an interest because I am on the Policing Board. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, mentioned the Independent Monitoring Commission. We should not hold our breath on that; the Chief Constable has said quite clearly a couple of times in the past two or three weeks that the IRA is and continues to be involved in present activities, and is ready and prepared to take the issue further.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith, said that it was regrettable that Sinn Fein had not condemned other activities going on at present. In the light of its recent full-page advertisements in America against the police and against people joining the police, I agree with the noble Lord that this will be a long-term affair. That is very sad for all of us. In the light of that, I support the order, but regretfully.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and share their regret that we are having to take this order through the House. I shall try to deal with the specific points that have been raised. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has had to return to Grand Committee—he has carried out the remarkable feat of being in two places at once.
	The noble Lord commented in particular on the raft of issues that we are addressing in Northern Ireland at present. I agree that these are difficult times. However, let me say in response to the noble Lord and also in response to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Rogan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that the Prime Minister and the Government have made it absolutely clear that we need to see a complete, total and definitive end to paramilitary activity. The Government's message could not have been clearer and we have also made it clear that we need to see a willingness that everyone will be able to share power once we resolve the question of paramilitarism.
	My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, with the Taoiseach, went to Northern Ireland and engaged in further talks. That level of intensive activity will continue. In an attempt to break the deadlock, we are engaged in a process of making absolutely clear to the parties what is necessary for a return to devolution. However, I share the regret that noble Lords have expressed this afternoon.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, raised the issue of the time available to discuss Northern Ireland issues. I believe that the Government have taken every opportunity to make such time available. As the noble Lord will know, I have continued the tradition established by my predecessor of bringing Peers with an interest in Northern Ireland together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to discuss these issues in an informal way. I hope that Members of this House feel that they have a degree of access to my right honourable friend that would not otherwise be available.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, there is a world of difference between those informal consultations and discussions, which are very valuable for putting matters in context, and the formal machinery by which we consider Northern Ireland business. There is a feeling in Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland business is getting rather short shrift in terms of Westminster scrutiny. That was the point to which I wanted to draw attention.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and I was coming on to those other points. I have made it absolutely clear that the special Grand Committee procedure which we have put in place for Northern Ireland is available to us. Indeed, I have written to noble Lords with an interest in Northern Ireland to set out the issues that we will be considering in the next few months, although other issues will be added to that. All noble Lords know that there is pressure on time in the Chamber. We will have to negotiate through the usual channels to ensure that Northern Ireland issues are considered. I repeat, however, that the accent has to be on finding ways of resuming devolution quickly, not preparing ourselves for a long period of direct rule.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, expressed concern about the increase in race crime and the safety and protection of Filipino nationals in Northern Ireland. I absolutely agree that those attacks are totally unacceptable. He is quite right that we have published a community relations consultation document entitled A Shared Future. Eliminating sectarianism, tackling racism and building trust between and within communities in Northern Ireland remain key priorities for the Government. As part of that process, we are resolved to tackle issues of racial equality by developing a race equality strategy for Northern Ireland which aims to eliminate racial discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and increase participation of ethnic minorities in social, public, economic and cultural life.
	If I may, I shall write to the noble Lord on his specific questions about how the £500,000 which has been allocated will be spent. He particularly wanted to know whether there would be a consultation process and what would be the longer-term impact of the grant.
	I think that I have already addressed the issues raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in my general remarks. However, I entirely agree with him that we want to see an inclusive process for policing and security issues in Northern Ireland. That is why we have said time and again to Sinn Fein that they should take up their places on the Policing Board.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Making of Remedial Orders) Amendment Bill [HL]

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Avebury: My Lords, on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that the Government could see the case for changes that were recommended by the JCHR, which are the subject of this Bill, and they would not oppose them if they found favour with the House. They did wish, however, to ensure that any decision was made in an "informed way" by the House. That applied particularly to Clause 1(1), although I am not absolutely sure why the Minister was not then equally interested in the remainder of the clause, where the proposed changes in the wording to Schedule 2 are found. I hope the Minister will think that the debate we are about to have will fully discharge the duty that your Lordships have to thoroughly examine the proposals in this Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, provided a very helpful explanatory memorandum, reminding the House of a procedure for making remedial orders of any legislation, primary or secondary, which has been declared by a higher court to be incompatible with any ECHR right forming part of our law, or which appears to a Minister to be incompatible with such a right in consequence of a finding against the UK by the European Court of Human Rights.
	These remedial orders follow one or other of two procedures, which are set out in Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act. If the order declares the matter to be urgent, then, under Paragraph 2(b), it can be made without a draft being approved by Parliament, and that remains unchanged by this Bill. In other cases, the proposed draft has to be laid before Parliament for 60 days, and then the actual draft must be laid, together with a statement on any representations made and any changes to the draft order which are made in the light of those representations. I would be interested to know from the Minister how many remedial orders have been made under each of those two headings, if the noble Lord has the figures. In the case of urgency, what opportunity does the JCHR have for studying and commenting on the proposal? I recognise that, in this Bill, we are talking about only the non-urgent procedures under Clause 2(a).
	As I understand it, the noble Lord seeks to alter the balance between the two 60-day periods which are provided for under the scheme. He wishes to lengthen the first period to take account of days when Parliament is not sitting, in order to give the JCHR a better opportunity of collecting voices and making representations while the order is still in draft, and correspondingly shortening the second period when, for all practical purposes, the final text has been settled. I believe there have been occasions in the past when the JCHR has been rather pressed to examine an order and to make its report in time, because of the timing of the order in relation to parliamentary recesses. Maybe my noble friend Lord Lester could say something about that.
	I turn to the second period of 60 days. It can be assumed that the JCHR would have already examined the draft—and presumably in every case that the draft would have been altered in the light of its recommendations. The effect is, as the committee explained in its report on the making of remedial orders quoted in the explanatory memorandum, to delay the securing of convention rights. Will the noble Lord, Lord Lester, explain at what point the order would be approved if the Bill is passed?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Avebury for having enabled us to have an informed debate on this technical but nevertheless important Bill. It would be helpful to have some indication from the Minister as to whether he regards the short debate as being satisfactory for that purpose. I shall do my best briefly to add to what was said at Second Reading. I should make it clear that, although I am the midwife of the Bill, it is a Bill put forward on behalf of the whole Joint Committee of Human Rights.
	As my noble friend said, on the procedures themselves, there are two ways in which an order can be made. In urgent cases, an order may be made without first being approved in draft; I refer noble Lords to paragraphs (2)(b) and (4) of Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act. In other cases, paragraphs (2)(a) and (3) lay down the following procedure. Since it was not mentioned at Second Reading, I may be forgiven for summarising it.
	First, a proposal for the order containing a draft of the proposed order and specified information must be laid before Parliament. Then 60 days must elapse, beginning with the day on which the proposal was laid. A draft order must then be laid before Parliament, with a statement summarising any representations received after the 60-day period, and giving details of any changes made to the draft order in the light of the representations. The draft order must then lie before each House for at least 60 days, after which it must be approved by a resolution of each House. The order may then be made.
	The periods of 60 days are calculated without taking account of any period in which Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, or both Houses are adjourned for more than four days. I refer noble Lords to paragraph (6) of Schedule 2 to the Act.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights is responsible, under its order of appointment from this House and under Standing Order No. 152B of the House of Commons, for scrutinising proposals for draft remedial orders, draft remedial orders themselves and remedial orders made by the urgent procedure. It is also responsible for reporting to each House whether they meet certain tests, and its recommendations as to whether they should be approved in the form proposed by the Minister or with amendments, or whether they should be disapproved.
	In December 2001, the committee drew attention to two implications of the provisions that arose from considering the first proposal for a draft remedial order laid under the 1998 Act. Noble Lords may see House of Lords Paper 58 for that. On the last occasion that we debated this matter, I explained the first problem relating to the words "both Houses", and the way in which that shortens rather than lengthens parliamentary scrutiny. I do not need to say any more about that at this stage; it cannot be, in my submission, controversial. The second problem relates to the 60-day period, which I also mentioned on the last occasion that this matter was debated. Before I come back to that, I need to answer the first of the questions put to me by my noble friend Lord Avebury.
	My noble friend asked how many remedial orders had been made, whether they had been treated as urgent or non-urgent and whether the Joint Committee on Human Rights had a chance to scrutinise them. The answer is that two remedial orders have been made—the Mental Health Act 1983 (Remedial Order) 2001 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial Order) 2004. Both orders were made using the urgent procedure. The mental health order originally started life under the non-urgent procedure but, when the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the matter, we recommended that it was more appropriate to use the urgent procedure. The relevant Minister then withdrew the proposal for the draft order and instead laid an urgent procedure order before Parliament.
	The Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial Order) 2004 is another order made under special procedures set out in the Human Rights Act to allow for the speedy remedying of an incompatibility between UK law and the convention rights established under that Act, as determined by the European Court of Human Rights.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to each House on each case as regards the use of the powers by the Minister. That is another parliamentary safeguard. I refer the House to the Joint Committee on Human Rights 9th Report 2003–04 where we explained in more detail the joint committee's responsibilities. We explained:
	"Under our order of appointment from . . . [this House] and Standing Order No. 152B of the other place, we have two functions in relation to remedial orders. First, we act as guarantor of the propriety of the use of the power to make remedial orders under section 10 and Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Secondly, we act in place of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to ensure that the order meets the criteria of formal propriety which normally fall within the purview of that Committee. We explained our responsibilities in more detail in our Seventh Report of 2001–02".
	I would bore and tire the House unnecessarily if I went into the details. Then we explained:
	"When a remedial order is made by the urgent procedure, [the Committee] are required to report at least once during the 120 days within which the Order must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses if it is not to lapse. In practice, we report in the first 60 days, so that the Minister can take account of our report when deciding whether to withdraw the order and make and lay a new one. The matters on which the Committee must report are: . . . whether the order imposes a charge on public revenues or requires payments to be made to a public authority; . . . whether there is doubt as to whether it is intra vires; . . . whether it appears to make unusual or unexpected use of the power under which it is made; . . . whether for any reasons its purport calls for further elucidation; . . . whether its drafting appears to be defective; . . . whether there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or laying of the order, or in notifying the Speaker and Lord Chancellor where the instrument has come into force before being laid; and . . . whether the order should be approved in the form in which it is originally laid before Parliament, or should be replaced by a modified order, or should not be approved.
	"In practice [the Joint Committee] also report whether we consider it was proper to proceed by way of remedial order",
	rather than, for example, by primary legislation. The report continues:
	"Section 10(2) of the Human Rights Act provides that a Minister should only proceed to remedy the incompatibility by means of a remedial order, rather than by primary legislation, if he or she 'considers that there are compelling reasons' to do so. We also consider whether, in our view, it was proper to use the urgent procedure".
	I apologise for having taken so long on such an apparently dull subject. I hope that that account fully explains the rather elaborate and good general procedure that ensures that a watchdog committee scrutinises remedial orders in draft or otherwise very thoroughly and reports to the Minister conscientiously. Then the committee and the Minister make sure that the right procedure is followed and the House has a fully adequate period to consider the matter. So far as concerns the 60-day period, having looked at the matter, the committee considered that it was unnecessary to insist on 60 days having expired before the draft order could be pursued if the committee had reported that it would be appropriate to approve the draft order in the form in which it had been laid. All of that was explained at Second Reading so I do not need to refer to it.
	I hope that I have answered all the questions. I have one small and very pedantic point to mention, not because I expect the Minister to be able to deal with it, but because his advisers might wish to consider the matter. It is a non-controversial point. Reading Schedule 2 to the 1998 Act carefully, I wonder whether the heading to paragraph 4 should read "Urgent cases" when the paragraph deals with urgent and non-urgent cases. If I am right, that is the kind of tedious, pedantic tidying up that only a lawyer might mention. It may be wholly unnecessary, but perhaps the Home Office could consider the point before the Bill leaves this House. With that I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the Bill as drafted, and as explained totally accurately by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I declare my interest as a member of the committee that approved it.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The Government are genuinely neutral on the amendment. Noble Lords who attended our commendably brief Second Reading debate will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, agreed with my noble friend Lord Filkin that an opportunity should be provided for the House to debate the shortening of the period of time available to Parliament to scrutinise proposed non-urgent remedial orders. The debate on whether the clause stand part, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, provided that opportunity. I have listened with great interest to what your Lordships have said.

Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Bill is important and historic. It forms a critical part of the Government's strategy to modernise the fire and rescue services to help to save more lives. It is the first comprehensive legislation on the fire and rescue services in more than 50 years and will replace the Fire Services Act 1947. That legislation built a framework which placed a strong emphasis on rapid and effective response to fires.
	The services have historically performed to a very high standard in responding to and dealing with fires. Noble Lords no doubt share in holding firefighters in high esteem for their professionalism and willingness to confront danger. But despite that success, still too many lives are lost. Around 300 deaths and over 9,000 injuries are estimated to have occurred in accidental dwelling fires in England and Wales in 2002. It is the vulnerable in society who are most likely to be affected. For example, people aged 80 or above are six times more likely to die in a house fire than those between the ages of 30 and 59.
	The effectiveness of a predominantly intervention-based approach was considered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee in its report on the fire service published on 23 January. It noted that in 50 per cent of cases involving fatalities, the victims were dead before the fire service was called. So there is a powerful and persuasive case for increasing the focus on the prevention of fire, which is a key aim of the Bill.
	Shifting the service towards a more risk-based and preventative approach was a key recommendation of the independent review of the fire service led by Sir George Bain. Noble Lords will recall that the report by Sir George and his two colleagues, Sir Michael Lyons and Sir Anthony Young, was published in December 2002. It did not pull its punches in demonstrating either the case for change or the responsibility of all involved with the fire and rescue service to deliver that change. As the Select Committee recognised, too many far-reaching reviews into the future of the fire and rescue service had been left to gather dust on the shelf.
	The fire and rescue service White Paper, Our Fire and Rescue Service, published in June 2003, set out the Government's response to the Bain report. It welcomed and accepted the broad thrust of the recommendations. It also made clear that the Government were committed to implementing reform and providing greater strategic direction for the fire and rescue service. I am pleased to inform noble Lords that good progress is being made on taking forward these reforms.
	Responses to the consultation on the draft fire and rescue national framework are being considered. Integrated risk management plans, which all fire and rescue authorities must now have, are being implemented as of 1 April. Regional control centres are being introduced and the new integrated personal development system is being rolled out with a new investment in the Fire Service College to develop a centre of excellence.
	The Bill represents the next crucial step in delivering that package of reforms. I will briefly delineate its structure. Part 1 deals with the definition of fire and rescue authorities and their structure. It updates existing powers that provide for voluntary and compulsory combination of fire and rescue authorities. These powers were the subject of considerable debate during the detailed scrutiny in another place where accusations about regionalisation by the back door were prominent.
	So before we go any further I would like again to set the record straight so that there is no doubt. The Government are not proposing to regionalise the fire and rescue service except in those regions where voters themselves choose to have an elected regional assembly. That is the choice of the voters, not the Government. Elsewhere existing fire and rescue authorities will continue to be responsible for the service.
	But greater collaboration and co-operation between fire and rescue authorities is vital to provide a more cost-effective public service and the efficient organisation and delivery of key functions. For example, the crucial role of the fire and rescue service in dealing with major emergencies such as a terrorist incident requires adequate capacity, continuity and consistency of approach. Achieving the necessary resilience also requires robust planning and preparation and region-wide co-operation. That is why, for example, regional control rooms are such an essential requirement.
	That is a key reason why we requested that all fire and rescue authorities other than London—which is already organised on a region-wide basis—work together to establish regional management boards. The Local Government Association is monitoring progress which, I understand, is generally encouraging. We hope and expect that regional management boards can and will tackle the issues that must be addressed at a regional level, but the powers in the Bill provide an important reserve power to be used only should regional management boards fail to deliver.
	I turn to the functions of the Bill. Part 2 establishes a new legislative framework for the fire and rescue service. It provides a clear statement of the new functions of fire and rescue authorities alongside their traditional role in fighting fires. I say in parenthesis that that is why some of the Bill's provisions are almost statements of the obvious; it is because they have come over from the Fire Services Act 1947, which is being completely repealed. The functions are to deal with the aftermath of road traffic accidents, to promote fire safety and to prepare for, and respond to, major emergencies.
	This new legislative structure is integral to a modern fire and rescue service that helps save more lives and is better able to protect the public. Stopping fires happening and educating people about fire safety is critical, and we know that prevention works.
	Smoke alarm ownership has gone from 9 per cent to 76 per cent in the past 20 years. As a result 80 lives a year are believed to be saved. But we need to focus our efforts on the remaining 24 per cent of households, typically those most vulnerable to fire, that still do not have a working smoke alarm. Smoke kills. Some months ago I visited the Fire Service College. Under supervision I put on the appropriate clothing and with air equipment tackled a fire. I was told, "OK, Jeff, you can put on the hose and put out the fire". However, I could not see the fire although I knew that it was there as I had watched it being lit. The smoke became very black in a short space of time. It is easy to understand that smoke is the key danger and that it is what kills most people, hence the work that is needed to persuade the remaining 24 per cent of households that do not have a working smoke alarm to get one.
	Some excellent and innovative work is being done by individual fire and rescue authorities to raise levels of fire safety awareness. But across the country performance varies and there is clearly a need to do more. The duty to promote fire safety will ensure that prevention is at the heart of fire and rescue authority strategy.
	Proper statutory footing for the role of the fire and rescue service in responding to major emergencies, for example serious flooding or a terrorist incident, is a key element of the Bill. Noble Lords are aware that the purpose of the Civil Contingencies Bill is to create a new national framework for responding to major civil emergencies. The powers in this Bill will ensure that the fire and rescue service makes an effective contribution to that response.
	In addition to setting out core duties, we are giving fire and rescue authorities flexibility to equip for and respond to other events and situations they judge, for example, as a result of the preparation of their integrated risk management plans, present a risk to life and the environment.
	Part 2 of the Bill also provides flexibility for fire and rescue authorities to work in partnership with others to deliver. It provides for delegating the discharge of a function to another body, for example the promotion of fire safety to a local education authority; securing assistance from other fire and rescue authorities and others such as the BAA Fire Service that employ firefighters to discharge core operational functions; and maintaining the existing prohibition that only those who employ firefighters can deal with fighting fires.
	The Bill also provides the power to set out by order what fire and rescue authorities can charge for. This particular provision also received extensive scrutiny in another place. It was made clear that the Government's policy is to enable fire and rescue authorities to continue to recover the cost of providing certain services, in circumstances where they deem it appropriate. That was the commitment in the fire and rescue White Paper and the consultation paper issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 10 February. I cannot say much about that as I think that the consultation does not close until 7 May.
	Part 3 of the Bill covers the administration, supervision and infrastructure of the fire and rescue service. It will give statutory force to the fire and rescue national framework and require the Secretary of State to report against it.
	The national framework provides the strategic direction recommended by the Bain report. It sets out priorities and objectives for the fire and rescue service and the support the Government will provide. In most instances it will be for fire and rescue authorities to determine how best to deliver the requirements of the framework, and we hope and expect that they will do so. But we must be able to act where a fire and rescue authority is failing to act in accordance with the national framework given the potential impact for essential emergency response services. The Bill provides intervention powers for such circumstances where existing powers available under "best value" would not apply. However, as my ministerial colleagues made clear in another place, they are powers of last resort and would be exercised within the spirit of the existing intervention protocol agreed with local government.
	Part 3 of the Bill also provides powers for the Secretary of the State to supply equipment or services to the fire and rescue service and, if necessary, to require an individual fire and rescue authority to use them. The Bill also re-enacts Section 1(1)(b) of the Fire Services Act 2003, which allows the Secretary of State to direct fire and rescue authorities on the use and disposal of assets and facilities. Noble Lords may recall that the 2003 Act is time-limited by a two-year sunset clause.
	However, when that Bill was introduced, the Government made it clear that longer-term arrangements to ensure access to assets crucial to public safety would be a matter for a substantive Bill. But the Bill before us today does not allow the Secretary of State to impose terms and conditions. That was the other limb of Section 1 of that Act. Those powers will end, as envisaged, in November 2005—two years after the legislation came into effect.
	So far as concerns employment, effective negotiating machinery is crucial to modernising the fire and rescue service. Weaknesses in the existing national joint council arrangement were crystal clear to anyone who took an iota of notice during the recent pay dispute. Therefore, the White Paper made clear that the review by the Fire Brigades Union and employers of existing national joint council arrangements must deliver a structure which reflects more closely the changing role of the service and which is more representative of all those who work within it. Therefore, Part 4 of the Bill provides the powers to put that new structure in place. I repeat that these are reserve powers which we do not intend to use so long as the current discussions between employers and workforce representatives deliver a satisfactory outcome.
	Another issue to emerge from the pay dispute was the role of government in setting out their legitimate concerns about the implications for wider public sector pay policy. We believe that that is best achieved by setting out our requirements in advance of negotiations, leaving employers and employees clear about government expectations. The Bill will provide powers to issue that guidance to any negotiating body—established voluntarily, which is what we want, or via powers under the Bill—and such a body will have to have regard to it.
	Other measures within the Bill will also help to make the fire and rescue service a better place for all who work within it. For example, it will strengthen existing pension provisions while providing powers to create new, multiple pension schemes—a major workforce concern—and it will repeal outdated legislation to allow a modern approach to recruitment, training and development and discipline.
	Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill also contains a number of other provisions. It re-enacts provisions to ensure the effective supply of water for fighting fires; it provides for ancillary powers for firefighters to respond to situations on the ground when dealing with fires, road traffic accidents and other emergencies; it provides powers to enter premises and investigate fires; it deals with the abolition of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council; and it deals with devolution of the fire and rescue service in Wales to the National Assembly for Wales.
	In conclusion, the new challenges that we face require a modern fire and rescue service that is better able to protect the public and save more lives. It will be a service that places greater emphasis on the prevention of fires and takes greater account of today's risks in deploying its resources. It will work closely with local communities to identify and eliminate potential risks, particularly those affecting the most vulnerable, and it will be a more efficient service with fire and rescue authorities working together to underpin national resilience. The White Paper set out the Government's vision for a fire and rescue service—a vision which has been very widely welcomed and endorsed, most recently by the Select Committee in the other place. The Fire and Rescue Services Bill is crucial in delivering that vision. I commend it to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, it seems no time at all since we were sitting during the long hot days of last summer discussing what became the Fire Act 2003, the emergency measure brought in as a result of the fire dispute and strikes. The dispute soured the relationship between the Government and the firefighters and resulted in both the Bain and the Mott MacDonald reports. Many of their recommendations are included in the new Bill.
	As the Minister said, the 2003 Act enables the Secretary of State to take control of equipment; to order fire station closures; and, if necessary, to impose the financial settlement. Those provisions are very similar to many in the new Bill, although I accept that, as the Minister said, the financial implications will fall as a result of the sunset clause contained in the Act.
	Two questions immediately arise. First, which legislation will take precedence—this Bill or the Fire Services Act 2003? Secondly, as this Bill will repeal the entirety of the Fire Services Act 1947, what is the position with regard to Section 19 of that Act which was repealed as part of the Local Government Act 2003 and which transferred decisions on the closure of fire stations and the reduction in the number of firefighters from the Secretary of State to local fire authorities? The provisions in this Bill enable the Secretary of State to do what he is enabled to do under the 2003 Act, which is to take those powers to himself. As we discussed during passage of the Local Government Act, we clearly have a dichotomy and divergence, which we saw coming. The Minister may like to reply to that because it will save us having to debate the matter further.
	As the Fire Services Act 1947 will not exist, does that mean that this decision will not exist either and that the Deputy Prime Minister will resume control over the numbers of firefighters and stations? There seems to be a danger that confusion rather than clarity will reign.
	One aspect which is clear, however, is that the Government's centralising tendency is back in play again. However much the Minister tries to put it aside, regionalisation in this legislation is no less ambitious than it has been in the field of planning, housing, learning and skills, all of which now have a regional dimension. The fire service, too, is destined to be administered by regional assemblies if they are ever implemented; but whether or not they are, regional management boards, a combination from other fire authorities, have already been set up. It is not unknown for the Government to implement new arrangements before they have legislative backing to do so. However, to instruct that those bodies should be set up by 1 April this year, prior to any consideration of this legislation in this House, takes this unhappy talent into new territory.
	Questions have already been raised in the other place about the rationale behind the creation of this regional level, and we shall pursue that further. The Bill presages major reform of an important service. It throws all the cards up in the air, as has happened with other services, and has the possibility of leaving things standing for a long time unresolved. During the Bill's passage we shall certainly want to test how quickly things will be implemented. Experience from other major reforms has been that they set up and send out far more questions than they resolve in the rather limited detail in the Bill.
	The details for the Bill's implementation are found in the national framework, a draft document which the Government do not intend should be debated or considered by Parliament even though it contains the prescriptive detail which dictates to the fire authorities how the newly named fire and rescue service should operate. The introduction states that the White Paper on which this Bill is based introduced the most radical reform since the Second World War. That statement, which the Minister has borne out, scarcely does justice to the 1947 Act, which has survived and served us well for some 55 years.
	We shall concentrate on the need for the framework to be the subject of an affirmative order so that the extremely important elements of the Bill which appear in the national framework and are not due to be discussed by Parliament cannot be just cast aside as not being of concern to both Houses. These include such matters as the integrated risk management—a not uncontentious subject, at least among the firefighters themselves; the regional approach, which covers such subjects as how fire and rescue authorities should work together through the regional management boards; the management of specialist and common services; training—the vastly important matter of how the service should be organised, trained and equipped to deal with any terrorist threat; and the proposal, which also is not widely welcomed, to introduce the best value regime to the fire and rescue service.
	I cannot forbear from commenting on one word, which is contained in the ministerial foreword to the framework. That is the word "customer". It states that,
	"we have established a Business and Community Safety Forum and a Practitioner's Forum to involve the 'customers' of the Fire and Rescue Service".
	If ever there were a less appropriate use of that word, it would be hard to imagine.
	By definition, any service which seeks to protect and provide security for the public needs to be locally based. We are concerned about the proposals for the combining of fire authorities and possibly control rooms—I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Hanningfield will want to talk about that when he winds up—and the power that will reside in the hands of the Secretary of State. Clause 22 must be quoted in this context, because it is so ridiculous. It states:
	"For the purpose of securing that the authority acts in accordance with the Framework the Secretary of State may . . . require the authority . . . to do something; . . . to stop doing something; . . . not to do something".
	On that definition, the Secretary of State could manage to intervene on almost anything.
	The fire service has the well-earned respect of local communities. The proposals in the Bill to extend its name to the fire and rescue service is a welcome recognition of the work that in fact it has been doing for years in attending road accidents, chemical spillages, train disasters, releasing people trapped in lifts and even rescuing cats from trees. But it is not a new concept. Local people rely on their fire stations and the expertise brought by those involved in the service. We welcome, therefore, the introduction of local flexibility to match the deployment of resources to locally identified risks.
	However, we view the framework's proposals for charging for some of these services with caution. Of course, firefighting would be exempt, but it has been suggested—and the Minister might want to comment on this—that road accidents might be subject to a charge, as might rescuing those trapped in lifts or in dealing with flooding. By definition any charge under those circumstances would probably fall on the insurance industry. But it raises really quite serious questions as to whether someone trapped, for example in a car, would have to indicate that they had insurance before they were rescued. I am sure that the Minister will want to reassure us about that because it is not at all clear.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, let us make it clear before that hare gets running. It is completely out of the question that the fire service on attending a road traffic accident would seek to ask someone trapped in a car, "Have you got insurance or will you pay for this before you are rescued?". With great respect to the noble Baroness, it is preposterous for her to even raise that. As regards rescuing people from lifts, a commercial property normally has its own cover with lift engineers. They ring for the fire brigade because they know that it will come more quickly than the engineer—and then expect it done for nothing. Therefore, charges are usually made for things like that.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, many people will be grateful for that response. However, where insurance is involved, and it surely will be, the insurance industry is not a milch cow, and the costs will inevitably fall back on general insurance premiums. However, providing educational training, lectures on fire prevention, and other fire safety issues, could be a form of money-raising. I accept that for people stuck in the lift, that might be an acceptable charge, but I would not want to be sitting round waiting having to pay for it. It would be infinitely preferable to savings being raised from the indiscriminate closure of fire stations.
	The threat of terrorism seems to be one of the drivers for the changes, and for the Bill that the noble Lord mentioned. A more centralised approach to the service must be catered for, and arrangements must be made to ensure that there is cover and expertise in the event of a major catastrophe. This can be done on a co-operative basis, and I am sure it has had to be in the past. That alone would certainly not be a justification for this Bill, nor is it for the powers that are being taken to enable the Secretary of State to create new combined fire authorities, to appoint the members of those authorities, to impose negotiating bodies on the service, to intervene in the management of a specific fire or incident, and to override the decisions of a professional fire officer on the scene of a major incident. We have difficulty with all this, and much else.
	The Bill gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, far in excess of what is required to ensure that we have an up-to-date fire and rescue service. I have indicated some of our areas of concern. We will be dealing with these, and others, during the next few weeks. We recognise the importance of combining fire and rescue and also of prevention work. We welcome the emphasis laid on that. The safety of people in our communities is one of the most important areas for a government. We need to be sure that this Bill and the accompanying framework are a means of achieving that, in a measured and sensible way.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill and from these Benches I also put on record our thanks to firefighters and to others who work in the service to enable them to do the front line job.
	I have no direct interest to declare, but I do have an interest in a non-technical sense, having observed at a slight remove over the past four years how certain major services have operated in London, having been brought under the umbrella—or, in friendlier terms, into the family—of the Greater London Authority. One of these is the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Its tradition and culture of governance, having transferred from local governance authority—the 33 boroughs governance—shows. Although it still has some battles to fight and goals to achieve, I firmly believe that that culture translates well into efficiency and effectiveness.
	In sharp contrast, the police in London, until a little less than four years ago, were under the direct control of the Home Secretary. Noble Lords should not in any way take this as a comment on the police's operational effectiveness. I am talking about transparency and accountability, and I firmly believe that the financial controls in the case of the police are far better. Certainly they are beginning to be clearer. That means that when you spend less on paperclips—and I do not believe that anyone really knew how much was spent on paperclips—you can spend more on front line services.
	I make the distinction because the Bill returns us to our old friend, the question of centralisation and the powers of the Secretary of State. I can see the Minister grinning—he is starting to write already. He can write down that these Benches in general welcome the Bill. I want to make that clear. However, it is the role of the Opposition to dig into the detail. That may mean that we are critical on some matters. That should not be taken as general opposition to the Bill. I shall exercise some self discipline, but not 100 per cent, during the Committee stage.
	These Benches will question the powers of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister will understand that is not the same as questioning his right honourable friend as an individual, or even as a representative of the current Government. As I have said before in this House, the current Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister, may not always be the right honourable friend of the Minister, raising the spectre of a Conservative Secretary of State, or even worse in the Minister's eyes, a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State. I read the Bill in the knowledge that life moves on, but legislation does not come along as often as new governments. However, when I last made the point, somebody from behind me on these Benches said rather loudly, "That does not mean you do actually trust the current Secretary of State". To retain my street credibility, I better put that on record as well.
	A number of these points have been touched on already, but we will discuss during the proceedings on the Bill the compulsory creation of combined fire authorities of a size determined by the Secretary of State. We will also discuss what evidence he or she will need for such a creation, and how that will be shared with others involved. We will discuss the Secretary of State's power to appoint just under half of the members of the new boards; his or her power to establish negotiating bodies, including their membership and chair; and powers to intervene when an authority is regarded as failing.
	We well understand the need to ensure standards and also, in some matters, cohesion and co-ordination between brigades and between authorities. We also understand that the Government cannot let be it said, "Why did you stand by and let such and such happen?". However, I question whether it is necessary to be quite so prescriptive as this Bill is.
	In the foreword to the draft framework, the Minister, Mr Raynsford, tells us that it,
	"sets out the Government's objectives for the fire and rescue services, and what fire and rescue authorities should do to achieve these outcomes".
	Those are separate matters. The Government do not need to set out every "how" as well as every "what". The foreword goes on to say:
	"These expectations will form a key tool in shaping the Audit Commission's Fire and Rescue Comprehensive Performance Assessment".
	It does not give me confidence that, as the introduction states,
	"giving fire and rescue authorities the flexibility they need to meet the specific needs of their local communities",
	is at the heart of the Government's approach.
	The Government's own submission to the Bain report referred to,
	"allowing flexibility to deliver the services communities require in changing circumstances with good value for money,"
	and focusing on,
	"delivering the outcomes that the community needs".
	I have commented on the distinction between "how" and "what".
	The White Paper refers to a service improvement team within the ODPM. That worries me. I am worried not about the Government's determination to create a good service but about their thinking that it cannot be good unless the ODPM is right there at the heart of it. However, I am a little confused. As I understand the White Paper, it would be independent of central government. If there is a need for a team within the ODPM, then the ODPM should own it, and it should not be independent. Is there anything the Minister can say on that point?
	We will also discuss what is encompassed by the power to require authorities, as the noble Baroness has said, to do something, stop it, or not do it. Unlike the noble Baroness, I can find something positive to say about this. When we were discussing the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, we were reminded of the desirability of using more modern terminology. That is certainly fairly modern and straight forward in the way it is worded.
	The power to direct an authority to respond or not to respond to an emergency is another matter we will focus on. The Minister mentioned the Civil Contingencies Bill, which is currently in the Commons. I should be interested to explore how the two Bills mesh together. As I read them, the definitions in the two Bills of "emergency" are not the same. What are the implications of that?
	It is also unclear how an order made by the Secretary of State conferring functions on a fire and rescue authority would work in practice. How does meeting an urgent situation sit with the process of obtaining an order before which the Secretary of State must consult?
	At Second Reading in the Commons, the Minister said:
	"If we have to use our reserve powers"—
	he was not talking about all of them at that point—
	"we will obviously consult more widely before doing so, and any details can be made public at that point".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/04; col. 53.]
	That probably speaks for itself. Having said that, I reiterate that we welcome the extended role for fire and rescue authorities, in recognition of the current reality. We join others who welcome the acknowledgement of the importance of prevention. We will join in the debate that we will, no doubt, have about how to deal with the provision of sprinklers and misters and about which premises they should be in and whether we should leave it to building regulations or use the opportunity provided by primary legislation.
	I mentioned the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Its most recent figures show that, for the current year, the target percentage of fire staff time spent on community safety is 6 per cent. In fact, it is only at just over 2 per cent. There is a long way to go.
	The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and others have, as we know, difficulty in recruiting women and people from ethnic minorities. That is important not just for all the reasons relating to equality of which your Lordships will be well aware but because, in achieving prevention, it is important that people in the service should—sometimes literally but more often metaphorically—talk the same language. I was disturbed to see that, with regard to the London authority, the percentage of black and minority ethnic applicants has always substantially exceeded the percentage appointed.
	With women, it is a question of attracting the right applicants. There is interesting work to be done in addressing the stereotyped perceptions of the role that deter women. Nor have I heard much mention of disabled people. The London authority recognises the need to work with the disabled community on public policy relating to disabled access and fire safety and ensure that the needs are met.
	As the Minister says, the question of pensions must be tackled. It is relevant to retained firefighters. I hope that it does not sound like lip service, but the most important resource is people.
	I have been interested in comments that I have heard from, among others, the Local Government Association about giving the fire and rescue authorities the power of well-being. That is an abbreviated way of expressing it, but it fits in with the prevention role and with the acknowledgement of the part that fire and rescue services play in wider issues relating to social injustice, anti-social behaviour and so on.
	As we were reminded by the noble Baroness, we will spend time in Committee on the regional dimension. The local dimension is also hugely important. I was much taken with a comment made by Andrew Bennett in one the debates in the Commons on joining up fire and rescue authorities and other parts of local government. He used the example of the provision of a dump site for old cars, to reduce the number of burnt-out cars that must be dealt with. We will have to do a lot of joining up. I am not sure what the implications of sharing the role with the Health and Safety Executive are. There are also issues concerning the co-responder role, and the fact that different emergency authorities may have roles that overlap.
	There is much to welcome in the Bill. There is much that we will question, both as a matter of democracy and, not least, because the best application of democracy leads to the best effectiveness.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to this Bill. As he rightly said, this is part of the reform programme outlined in the Government's White Paper.
	I understand that the FBU generally welcomes the new approach to fire cover, based on risk to life rather than risk to property. The union also supports moves for more resources to be put into fire prevention.
	There is apparently concern, however, that apart from some transitional funding, no additional money is to be provided for the reform package. This matter has already been raised before the Select Committee. There seems to be a belief that savings will be made as a result of the reforms, when according to many experts—including the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association—more money is needed to bring about improvements in community safety.
	It is thought that emphasis on fire prevention will result in fewer fires and this will cut costs. But will it? Very often preventative measures are themselves costly. These are matters that need to be addressed through consultations with the organisations most closely connected with this important service.
	Clauses 2 and 4 are concerned with moves to create larger regional fire and rescue authorities. The Bain report suggested joint police/ambulance/fire service control rooms. That is not supported by those involved in the provision of the service on the ground.
	As to large regional authorities, the FBU believes that this might make sense with a regional government structure—which looks to be some years away—but not with the current structure, and it appears to have little local support. I note with interest what the Minister had to say about regionalisation in his introduction to the Bill this morning.
	Clause 19 says that the Secretary of State may "by order" authorise charging for special services, but not for extinguishing fires or protecting life and property in the event of fires. Presumably it covers such matters as control of flooding, road accidents, possible terrorist attacks and other matters that involve fire services. It is doubtless intended that insurers should meet the charge, which would then be passed on to policy holders in higher premiums. Such powers exist at the moment, but they are not widely used.
	The ethos of the fire service is to provide humanitarian assistance. The provisions in Clause 19 may tempt cash-strapped authorities to charge where no charge has hitherto been made. That point has also been made to me by the FBU.
	As foretold in the White Paper, the Secretary of State is given overriding powers to do more or less as he pleases. This is apparent from Clause 22, that deals with intervention by the Secretary of State. Under Clause 22(1), he has overriding powers to intervene if he thinks that,
	"a fire and rescue service . . . is failing, or is likely to fail".
	I emphasise that. In other words, he has pre-emptive powers to act in accordance with the framework under Clause 21. But whereas Clause 21(5) provides for consultation of persons affected—particularly those representing employees—there is no consultation required prior to intervention under Clause 22. Why is it necessary to have such an overriding power of intervention?
	The section of the Bill which gives me—and some of my noble friends—most concern is Clause 31 dealing with employment.
	As I read the Bill, the Secretary of State may simply dispose of the national joint council, and bring into being a new body, of which he appoints the chairman, referred to as "independent". However, the work of the NJC was only reviewed and changed two years ago. The changes were approved by everyone, including the Government.
	In the new Bill, the Government reserve the right to impose their will on both sides. This is at variance with good industrial relations practice, as I—and my noble friends—indicated in the discussion of the last fire services Bill, to which, it may be recalled, we had a number of objections.
	The Government clearly intend to determine the number, composition and chairing of the new negotiating bodies. The Bill further says that the Secretary of State may issue guidance to negotiating bodies in connection with the conditions of service of employees and continues:
	"Negotiating bodies must have regard to any guidance issued".
	In other words, they must do as they are told by the Secretary of State. This is clearly not free collective bargaining as most of us understand it.
	I believe that the Government regard these powers as essentially fallback powers. Indeed, the Minister made that point this morning. But this is nowhere stated in the Bill, and it does not look as though these are contingency powers but powers the Secretary of State may use whenever he wishes to do so from the first day the Bill becomes law. The Explanatory Notes refer to them as reserved powers, whatever that may mean.
	I do not understand why it is necessary to legislate for these powers at all. It is true that there was a dispute last year—the first for very many years—but the fire service has always responded to emergencies threatening life, and did so during that dispute. So why are these powers necessary? As the Bill stands, the clause is, in my view, quite unacceptable.
	Why is it necessary to disband the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council? This will apparently be replaced by a number of other, chiefly appointed, advisory bodies. Is the aim to exclude staff representatives such as the FBU and the other unions from as many of these bodies as possible? The FBU suspects that it is, and perhaps the Minister will tell us.
	There are a number of issues that we shall want to explore further in Committee. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the provisions of the Bill, concerned with industrial relations and with local authorities, interact to create a dual control freak, under the aegis of the right honourable gentleman, the Deputy Prime Minister, for which the Fire Services Act has afforded a wrong and unwelcome precedent. The Bill is not acceptable to those who render the fire and rescue services, the chief officers, the Fire Brigades Union and the retained fire officers. It is not acceptable to local government and it is not acceptable to the TUC.
	In this context, on implementation, the Bill is opposed by the Conservative Party. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, which statute takes precedence? What is the position of powers on control? Radical reform cannot cast aside a national framework, contrary to the recommendations of the Bain report which cautioned a step-by-step approach. My noble friend referred to the powers of intervention.
	It was not and is not acceptable to certain noble Lords on the Back Benches opposite, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who has had vast practical and quasi-judicial experience in these affairs. She expressly rejected the overriding power—we come back to the control freakery, the essence of the Bill, and Clause 31—of intervention. With all her experience, she said that it is not necessary to legislate for these powers.
	Apparently, the Liberal Democrat Party has come off the fence. Although it does not wish to criticise the Government—it never does—I frankly have no inhibitions in doing so. I understand those who have. However, while not wishing to criticise the Government, the Liberal Democrats are going to indulge in an exercise that questions the powers of the Secretary of State in Grand Committee—more control freakery. Inevitably, alas, that will be a critical exercise, leaving aside questions of joining up with women, ethnics, the disabled and old motor cars.
	As it is common ground that restructuring of the fire and rescue service is long overdue, welcome and an urgent necessity, I hope that further consultation may ensue before Grand Committee with local government and the TUC on the means of implementation. Certain provisions, to which exception has been taken, are not so readily amendable and engage our international obligations; for example, those under Article 6 of the Social Chapter; Article 8 of the UN Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention 151, as referred to in the context of the Fire Services Act; and paragraph 1/6 of the House of Lords Paper 119.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that the Government have responded to the Bain report. However, in the context in which I have referred to it, assuredly they have not. He may say that there is no intention to use the powers, but here we revert to a rather tedious exchange that took place throughout the passage of the Fire Services Bill, to which I am anxious not to return on Second Reading of this Bill.
	I have some brief notes in order to save time. The first relates to the industrial relations aspect. Terms and conditions of employment and pay would be imposed; freedom of collective bargaining and the rights of representation would be restricted; and ownership of fire appliances would be assumed. I am concerned also by provisions in the Bill that would confer powers on the Secretary of State—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to them—to establish negotiating bodies and to settle their membership and their chair. He would also have powers of intervention to establish new remunerating bodies. These contravene employment law, convention and accepted practice. It is not understood how any government could have devised Clauses 31 and 32, or how they could have been passed in another place. That is a matter for Grand Committee. It may be resolved only at Third Reading, probably, or at Report.
	Moving on from the industrial relations aspect, there are many other concerns. We have dealt with the Bain report, but there is a question about the adequacy of funding, there being no additional investment. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, made reference to this reduction of the rescue role to make resources available for protection. A risk is taken there; it is a gamble. My noble friend Lady Hanham referred to other matters which do not call for repetition.
	What about the comprehensive performance assessment process? Surely that must be the only criterion by which to assess whether a fire authority should be deemed to be failing, or likely to fail, so as to enable intervention and to issue directions. Surely the same process used for local authorities facing intervention should be used. What about the extant local government arrangements with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? Should they not be followed? Are they not working satisfactorily? Surely the statutory guidance for the national framework should be expressed and recognised as having uniform general application.
	My last notes are on international obligations. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who has said so much of this before. I am afraid that I have to say it again because it is of crucial consequence to the order of this part of the debate. It is certainly no occasion on which to examine a 40-page submission of the Institute of Employment Rights, which was sent to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—of which I am a member—on 31 March of this year. This is because, long before this submission was received, the Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook to deal with observations made by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the implementation of such obligations by the United Kingdom, which will become of some relevance to this debate.
	It is asserted that the proposed regulatory regime under the Bill is in contravention of the international conventions that I mentioned, and another. Inevitably correspondence will ensue between the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the Chairman of the Committee; that sort of correspondence must ensue before a committee can ever report. One cannot report without seeking the Minister's views. It is inevitable that, irrespective of that correspondence, whenever that report is made, this matter will be debated in Grand Committee, and the response of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will be sought.
	The Bill is of general application, not limited to an emergency such as a terrorist attack. It is an imposition by decree, save in an emergency, on some sort of hand-on-heart assurance that it will be used only as a last resort. That inevitably constitutes an intended and wholly effective threat against the international obligations. As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has said in this context—and it was about the only thing that he said with which I really agreed—the legislation should be examined devoid of assurances and as a matter of strict instructions.
	Removal of the accepted traditional process of collective bargaining is neither requisite nor acceptable. It could well engender the very disruption of the services that it is presumed the Bill seeks to avoid. My noble friend Lady Hanham referred to the fact that the Government have the Fire Services Act; they already have adequate powers in an emergency situation such as a terrorist attack. As other noble Lords have said, it is not readily apparent that Clauses 31 and 32 could be amended to restore bargaining in accordance with convention and practice. At all events, the powers of intervention to impose new negotiating bodies must be removed. Will the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, tell me to what extent representation will be available on those bodies that replace the central fire brigade's advisory council to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred?
	I am highly critical of the Bill, for the reasons that I have given, and I am not ashamed to say so.

Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to say three things. First, I want to welcome the Bill and welcome the Government's statements in support and their explanation of it. It is time that we extended legally and in compulsory terms the responsibilities that the fire service has discharged for the most part on a voluntary basis, without being properly paid, for a very long time. It is good that we should bring that work into legislation, make it universal, fund it properly and regulate it. That is really what the Bill is about, and it is good that it should be done.
	It is also good that should be done on the basis of a certain amount of reorganisation. Everybody knows that the employers' side of this industry—if it is an industry—is fragmented, sometimes almost to the point of disappearance. There needs to be a restructuring. We could debate whether that should be based on regions or on some other level of control, but reorganisation is needed. Regulation is also needed and all that matters is that what the fire service is doing, should do and can do, should be specified by Parliament. So we welcome the Bill. I think that the whole House probably welcomes the Bill in that respect.
	Secondly, the doubts that have been raised are mostly clearly summarised in the report of the Select Committee that deals with the fire service in another place and which noble Lords may have read. It must be read very carefully because it is very guarded. Its criticisms are somewhat muted, but they are all there. When we get into Committee we shall, no doubt, be reading them out to each other.
	The criticisms concern many matters, but the one that I wish to focus on this afternoon is whether the Government are funding this exercise properly. The Select Committee is very concerned about that. The evidence from the submission that the union made to the committee is that it is also very concerned about it, as one would expect. If one reads what the local government employers say, it appears that they are also very concerned, as are a number of experts on the fire service who gave testimony to the committee.
	The crux of the issue is whether the Government believe that they are in engaged in some kind of self-financing productivity deal. In an attempt to find out about this, I asked a Parliamentary Question on 5 January about the balance of benefits and costs in this exercise. I do not suppose that many noble Lords read that in the Official Report.
	I was astonished to find that the Government claim that the benefits and costs will balance by 2006, that is to say that the savings plus the revenues on the one hand will balance with the costs on the other hand, perhaps by reductions in services. So there will not need to be any net funding of this beyond the funding of the pay deal and one or two small incremental increases.
	I also asked a question about the rate of increase in core funding. Since 1997 the rate of increase in core funding has been 4 per cent a year. In other words, we have spent 4 per cent more a year on the fire service—if I have got this wrong or if my question is not easy to understand, I hope that the Minister will tell me so. I understand that the Government have no express intention to raise the rate of increase in core funding, despite the fact that they will extend services, make them compulsory and make the fire service responsible for their enforcement. It is very difficult to believe that this can be possible. It is very difficult to understand why the Government say that they will do it. They do not have to say that. They would not dream of saying it about the National Health Service, education or the Prison Service, for example.
	Everyone now knows that if one improves the value, scope and efficiency of public services it costs more money. But somehow there will be increased revenues or increased savings and the Secretary of State says that the whole thing will balance out in 2006. I think that in Committee we shall be asking the Government to specify just how this will be done. They say that they will not charge people any more when they improve the services in relation to motorways or floods. When getting people out of flooded houses they will not charge them on the way. Most of what they do to help will continue to be free at the point of use. Of course there would be a scandal if there were a significant change to the present position. Yet somehow it is to balance out by 2006. Even if it balanced out by 2006 there would be an enormous deficit before it balanced out. I have asked the Government about that but they do not seem to be able to answer.
	If one reads the written evidence carefully, and if one reads the statements of the Ministers in another place, every now and again certain ideas are floated as to how there might be a reduction in costs. Later someone usually denies it or someone will say, "We shall not take much notice of 999 calls", and someone else will say, "Of course we will". Someone may say, "We'll send out smaller crews", but someone else will say, "Oh, no, we won't". Someone may say, "How do you explain the fact that in this improved service we are budgeting for reductions in certain key targets; for example, a smaller reduction in the number of anticipated deaths, so there may be a saving there?". But then someone else will say, "No, of course, there won't be any reduction".
	It is time the Government recognised, and were prepared to say, that there is no such thing as a self-financing productivity deal in the public sector. It always costs more money. The Conservatives thought that they could have a self-financing productivity deal in the health service and the quality of care went down the drain. It cannot be done because a price is not charged for the product. If a price is not charged for the product, as one extends the service, it will cost more money. Considerable sums of money have to be put up front and when the service has improved, the core funding has to increase. That is the evidence of every attempt that we have made to improve the real value of our social and public services.
	It will be exactly the same with the fire service. Unless the Government recognise that, and unless they are prepared to say here and now that that is what they will allow to happen, they will find that they cannot meet their targets. That is my second main point.
	I now turn to the third which covers the collective bargaining consequences of the Bill. As regards what is in the White Paper, there are some improvements on the face of the Bill. I am pleased to be able to say that. If the Bill is any guide—I hope it is—it looks as though the Government have dropped the ridiculous idea that one cannot go into the disputes procedure with an issue unless the employer says that one can. There is no sign of that proposal. I understand from the Government that they have taken it away.
	All the same, we will have to table an amendment to Clause 31, although the Government will not really answer it. A careful read of the clause as it is reveals that there is now no statement that the Government could put a Minister in the chair of the negotiating committee. They spell out the kind of people who could be put in the chair, but Ministers of the Crown are not among such people. They have dropped that one.
	I shall table an amendment to ensure that I have understood the point correctly—that we have it wrong when we think that in Clause 31 they are giving themselves powers to decide the individuals who sit on the workers' side. They could not now say, "We're not having the general secretary of the firemen's union; we'll have the deputy". That would have been quite monstrous, but as I understand it, they do not intend to do that.
	All that the Government are now trying to do in Clause 31 is to change the basis of recognition on the workers' side. I am sure one would not understand that if one just read the clause as it stands. Several noble Lords who have spoken today have not taken on board that when they talk about "persons", they are really talking about trade unions. They use a strange language. They are trying to replace the FBU monopoly with the retained fire fighters and the other associations. They are trying to break up the FBU monopoly.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what business is it of the Government to change recognition? Does that lie within the remit of Government?

Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am coming to that matter. We must not attack them for what they are not trying to do. What they are trying to do is bad enough. We shall ask and find out, but I take them on what they say. They say that they are not trying to do that; they are trying to change the recognition arrangements. I agree with the noble Lord; it is not for the Government to change recognition. There is certainly no need for a law. There is nothing in British law that prevents the employer from derecognising any trade union.
	If the local government employers wanted to derecognise the Fire Brigades Union, they could do so tomorrow. We do not need a law; it has nothing to do with the Government, unless of course they want to make themselves the employer, which they do not. Therefore I agree that it has nothing to do with them. We shall table an amendment to say so and ask the Government why they think it has anything to do with them.
	I turn to the chairperson. Although the Government say that they are not trying to put in the Minister as the chairperson, they say that they are taking power to decide who the chairperson shall be. They tell us in Clause 31 what kind of qualities the chairperson should not have: he should not be a Minister; he or she should not be an employee; and so on. But they do not tell us what he should be or where he should come from. If they are going to have a chairperson—and they do not tell us what the functions and powers of the chairperson are to be; we will table an amendment that forces them to say something—why do the Government have to decide whom he or she should be?
	In this country we have a valuable institution that deals with such issues; it is called ACAS. Why cannot the Government say that the parties will try to find their own chairman and if they fail they can go to ACAS to see what it can do? Why do we have to give the power to the Minister? I do not see why and we intend to pursue the matter in Committee.
	Finally, I turn to my old friend the independent assessment. We argued throughout Committee—and I do not think that the Government ever understood what we were saying—that there should be some form of third party assessment of what the Government wanted to do, particularly in the sphere of industrial relations, when they were imposing such provisions by law; by force, in effect, by the legal power of the Secretary of State to issue an order. They said that the parties could decide to use arbitration or mediation and go to ACAS while negotiating, but they could not do so after the Secretary of State had his last bite of the cherry.
	This is what I believe the Minister means by "reserve powers". If, as a result of the parties talking to each other, they cannot come to an agreement that he accepts, he can use his reserve powers. I call that legally enforced arbitration. I do not see why the Secretary of State, in this industry alone, should have that power.
	If we put this matter to the Government in Committee they must think about what they will say. I say that there should be a general right of independent assessment. It should not necessarily be binding and I do not say that the Secretary of State could not ignore it, but for anything he wants to do by law under the Bill he should not only consult—of course he should consult; the fact that he has to consult means that he cannot be in a hurry—but after he has consulted, or before, the judgment that he wants to impose by law should be subject to a published independent assessment.
	I want to end with a warning. The Government are not dealing with perceived failures; they are dealing with a perceived success. The fire service comprises the most popular group of public servants in the country. Independent polls have been carried out that show that 74 per cent of the public believe that the fire service is doing a good job. You cannot say as much for doctors or nurses, you certainly cannot say that for politicians and you cannot say it for journalists.
	The fire service is the most popular public service in the country. Whatever the Government believe, people believe that the fire service works. They think that it is a friendly, efficient, effective service. It has a higher level of trust than the BBC, the CAB or the PDSA. It is almost as popular as the AA. That is quite remarkable. Moreover, it is getting better. It is not as good as it could be, but it is still getting better all the time. So God help any government who are thought by the electorate to be making the fire service worse. You must be very careful what you do to the fire service.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as I am a late speaker in this debate many of the points that I might have made have been covered and so I shall speak from my personal experience as a member of the public and a former member of the Fire Brigade Committee of the Greater London Council, which was the successor to the London County Council so regularly mentioned in the 1947 Act.
	I am a great supporter of the fire brigade, and when I attended the presentations of commendations and awards for bravery I could hardly credit the courage of the recipients and the extraordinary lengths to which they went to save lives. They were so modest—"just doing my job", they often said.
	This has always been one of the problems of the service; life waiting to respond to a fire can be pretty dull. Then, in one moment, full alert comes and immediate action is required. It is not an easy transition for firemen to make and yet it is essential and they respond.
	As is clear in The Independent Review of the Fire Service, modernisation has been necessary for a very long time. Some changes have taken place but they have been piecemeal and slow.
	In my committee days, there were firemen working in London who travelled daily from Devon. That was costly and inefficient as it added long hours to the working day. The "spoilt meals allowance claims" were so great that one wondered whether a fire ever occurred except at meal times. Those are the sort of minor issues that required attention and I understand that they have now been addressed.
	It must be good to have the fire services working more closely with the other emergency services. I was sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, say that the unions were not in favour of a joint system comprising the police, fire and ambulance services, as I think that would be a very good thing. I have always admired the system in France that seems to combine services. I agree that firemen should not be trained as full paramedics. I support the recommendation in paragraph 10.16 of the Bain report,
	"that some firefighters are trained as first on the scene co-responders which would give them basic life support skills including training in the use of automated defibrillators".
	It is usual now for people to be able to operate that equipment, and I believe that it is desirable. There is a certain satisfaction in job terms in acquiring that skill.
	Someone referred to the views of the Local Government Association. It is worth quoting its view on the national framework. It states:
	"What is the national framework? The bill establishes a national framework for the fire service. This will set out priorities and objectives focusing on public safety, economy, efficiency and effectiveness of authorities and their functions".
	In response to the question, "What is the LGA's view?", the document states:
	"We welcome the innovation of the framework, including national quantified targets, which were proposed in the white paper. However the framework needs to allow enough discretion for local decision making and it must be recognised that authorities should be free to set their own, possibly more challenging targets".
	Paragraph 5.25 of the Bain report recommends other changes, not least of which is matching staff numbers and the whereabouts of those staff to the changing needs of daytime and night-time; for example, the City of London is busy during the commuter hours of the day and very quiet at night and at weekends, whereas, in the suburbs, the population increases at night.
	Traffic can be a problem and, of course, no one can foresee when a number of fires will occur in one area, necessitating the bringing in of an appliance from a more remote venue. But it is to be noted that in London fire stations are not always near areas of social deprivation, where most fires occur, or near large arterial routes, where most car crashes occur.
	Different areas of London have, indeed, changed and developed over the years, but moving sites will not be easy. Everyone wants a fire station but people do not want them to be next door to them. In spite of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, saying that everyone loves the fire service—I accept that the figure of 74 per cent is correct—everyone wants the noise of the fire engine out on quick call to be somewhere else and not on their doorstep. Paragraph 5.25 of the report also recommends a much greater emphasis on fire prevention and calls for,
	"the prevention of fire, the detection of fire, and safe escape should a fire occur".
	Education is essential. People need to know what precautions they should take. Smoke alarms are now common. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that 76 per cent of homes now have them, and they are priced so as to be available to all. I have personally found that the requirement to build in a wired smoke alarm in any new building can cause problems. Such alarms seem to go wrong much more often than the battery-operated variety, which, by constant beeping, make one aware when a new battery is needed.
	Many things are ideal in theory but do not work so well in practice. Fire-resistant construction and covering for furniture is good and necessary, but there seems to be no permanent method of marking. There is usually a tag attached to a new settee but that is not durable. I have been in the position of wanting to pass on settees that I no longer needed to someone who could use them. There are various organisations which collect good pieces for reuse, but they will not take them unless one can prove that they comply with fire protection standards. How can one prove that if the label is worn out or was detached when one received the piece?
	We have heard about sprinkler systems, and they were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I believe it is very important to build in sprinkler systems, particularly in new buildings and those for elderly, disabled or vulnerable people because they are the ones who have the greatest difficulty in getting out in the event of a fire. However, when we legislate for sprinkler systems, I think it is important to include flexible wording to cover whatever will apply to the generation of appliances that follow the sprinkler system. The word "sprinkler" may not be enough in itself.
	On a more basic level, at Question Time in this House, when I have tabled Oral Questions on this matter, one of your Lordships raised the issue of the chip pan fire—perhaps one of the most common causes of a home fire—pointing out that many people do not understand that water is the last thing that one puts on such a fire. Many years ago, my children gave me a fire blanket for use in such a situation. Even though I cannot say that I cook chips now, I keep the blanket in the kitchen. However, there is a need for greater public awareness of simple issues such as that.
	There also needs to be more clarification about the use of lifts in fires. In the 9/11 situation in New York, some people who used the lifts, contrary to advice, escaped. I understand that some special types of lift are now being developed which are suitable even for high-rise buildings. If that is the case, all that information should be available to those who are involved in designing new buildings as disabled people, in particular, may have no hope of a stair escape.
	I want to see the improvement of these vitally important services and hope that the Bill will be viewed as constructive. Of course, it will be considered in detail through its further stages. There is a need to maintain high morale in the service and to create a career structure, which will provide interesting and worthwhile future prospects for members of the fire services. But the Government should take note of the comment of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, which impressed me, about the cost of public services free at the time of delivery. I believe that more money will be needed. That is something which the Government will have to consider. I support the Bill.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, which will modernise the fire service; give it new and appropriate duties needed in the 21st century; make its activities indisputably legal and so give cover to its practitioners; combine the best of local decision making with regional efficiencies where regional assemblies are set up; rejuvenate the important link between the public and the fire service, which has always been based on the public's abiding admiration for the courage of firemen and fire women; and, above all, produce a fire service which protects property but saves lives quicker, more often and more efficiently and effectively.
	But this is a reform that has been waiting too long to happen. Fifty years of running on the spot led us to the trauma of the industrial action instigated by the FBU with its tactically intemperate 40 per cent pay claim, which in turn led to the Bain report and a proper exposure of the sclerosis of thinking that had taken root in the fire service.
	We now have a real opportunity not to wipe the slate clean but rather to build on the real legacy of Britain's fire service, which has always seen the brave men and women who staff it held so high in the esteem of the British public, a point made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. The Government have established a positive agenda with the Bill and should see it through to the end. I have one word of caution for my noble friend the Minister. The Government rightly seek to redress the failures of earlier governments who procrastinated and prevaricated in the face of the obvious silting up of the workings of the fire service and its capacity to deliver. That, indeed, is a fault of earlier governments and should not be visited unthinkingly on those who now serve in the service.
	The Government rightly ask for thorough-going change: changes in the law and in standards of response, a move to a risk assessment regime; and changes in the conditions of service as well as changes in the skills and training structures. But in acting as midwife to these profound changes the Government must show sensitivity to those who must now embrace change. I am convinced that the Government will be sensitive to these concerns and I hope that my noble friend can give the House further comfort today when he replies to the general debate.
	I also ask my noble friend to be mindful, as he always is, of the concerns of a wider public, who we all seek to serve. The fire service is a much loved and prized service, and the public will want a full explanation of why the proposed changes will be beneficial. I give an example: standards of response to a fire, expressed in numbers of appliances and their arrival times at incidents, are currently transparent and hence easily understood in the public's mind. Moving to a risk assessment regime, which seeks to match resources to fires, is less visible and hence perhaps less comforting to the voter. The Government must redouble efforts to explain why a more sophisticated system of risk assessment ultimately means more fires put out quicker and more lives saved and injuries avoided.
	But we must turn away from a world in which the fire service was home to too many practices, which undermined its central purpose. The absurdity of banning retained firemen from appliances staffed by full-timers has been laid bare by the Bain report. The practice of banning overtime as a spoiling tactic certainly helped achieve its aim of boosting jobs in the most perverse of unlooked-for outcomes. Where an appliance on call was one officer short on a four-person appliance due to illness of one of the team, the ability to grant overtime to an officer already on the station led authorities, as I understand it, to hire permanent full-time understudies who may or may not have been productive for the whole of any given shift, but who certainly raised the wages bill.
	Keeping highly-skilled footballers on the bench may be a surplus of talent and hence a luxury affordable by the Chelseas and Manchester Uniteds of this world, but it is not in the serious business of saving lives from fires.
	So I turn to the out-of-date thinking that will not contemplate fewer control rooms, better equipped and perhaps shared with other emergency services. The test should always be effectiveness as well as efficiency. Where efficiencies are achieved, it should be recognised that savings and surpluses could then be applied to other parts of the fire service, or indeed to other vital public services. That is a restatement, surely, of Nye Bevan's axiom that socialism is always about the language of priorities.
	In that regard I also welcome the Government's proposals to widen the skill base of those working in the fire service and their capacity to take on other relevant tasks once their core duties of firefighting have been better focused and resourced. It has been put to me, for instance, that one's local fire station could play an active role in relation to the better protection of children, especially in respect of the danger of ill fitted child seats in cars. Most of us are decidedly unskilled at things mechanical—certainly, I am. Why not provide a service at one's local fire station of checking the proper fitting of a child seat for worried parents? In addition, the public and firefighters would benefit from a better mutual understanding by such face-to-face meetings.
	That of course leads me to the proposals in the Bill to broaden the role of the fire service to recognise its already profitable involvement with the other rescue services. It must be wholly legitimate, and so welcomed, that we make the best use of all the skills our firefighters have, not only in fighting fires, but in other tasks where their core skills can come to the fore. Surely, that is not only a better use of resources, but fertile ground for broadening skills and their application for firefighters, which in turn breeds greater job satisfaction.
	I also welcome the Government's desire to give greater emphasis to the preventive role that the service currently undertakes. The Government must of course find a proper balance between fire prevention and firefighting. It makes sense to couple the functions, since the one in part depends on the other.
	However, I express my disappointment that the Bill does not intrude into the area of obliging the greater frequency of installing sprinkler systems—mentioned already by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—whose benefits many of us believe to be evident, and which is now being encouraged by the Scottish executive in new high-rise blocks of flats, residential care buildings and sheltered housing. My noble friend will know of your Lordships' strong interest in this subject from the Starred Questions that I and other noble Lords, again including the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, have asked on the issue in recent months. My own concern is for fires in school buildings where I believe existing as well as new buildings would benefit from sprinklers being fitted, especially when the occasional refenestrations offer established cost benefits. I hope that my noble friend will respond and perhaps say when the work commissioned by the ODPM and carried out by the Building Research Establishment will be concluded. Would he also comment on its interim findings, which found a positive role for hard-wired smoke alarms in preventing fire deaths, especially those attributable to smoke inhalation? I do not know whether the Minister has ever inhaled acrid smoke from a fire, but I did once, from toast burned to a cinder in a faulty toaster in a confined space. I got the fright of my life.
	I welcome too the Bill's rebalancing of the objectives of the fire service; namely, the placing of the saving of life above that of property. What will that mean in reality? I have had it put to me that our firefighting capacity provision may be thought to be too static, when you appreciate that potential risk moves from the city centre to the suburbs, from the working day to the evening and night. Most of us are exposed to greater danger from fire in our homes rather than our workplaces. Workplaces are often better equipped in terms of smoke alarms and sprinklers. The City of London, a former site of terrorist bombings, is a classic example. Its huge population by day retreats to the suburbs in the evening, leaving the square mile a ghost town. The danger to human life from fire has moved elsewhere, but do our fire services move likewise? They should, despite real logistical difficulties. Will the Minister say a little more on this?
	I hope that my noble friend will accept my support of the devolution of decision-making from the centre to our local communities, which is a theme common to the Government's policies on education and health. How will this devolution square with the equally appropriate moves to greater regionalisation, where the electorate vote for the regional assemblies? I see enormous benefits from establishing overviews from the regions, but I have two qualms. First, what will be the political set-up to ensure proper democratic control and oversight of any such broader-based regional entities? Secondly, how will such regional groups, and national groups, recognise the strong cross-border ties that exist in various parts of the United Kingdom? I live in Chester on the Welsh border, where over many years we have enjoyed considerable cross border co-operation of the fire services, as is sensible in the economic, social and cultural block that is represented by north Wales and the north west of England. We want nothing that dilutes that co-operation or which puts up an unnatural fire break between us.
	I am anxious to learn from my noble friend what ties have been established in the European Union and with our Commonwealth friends to share best practice in the fields of firefighting and fire prevention. I have a hunch that we too easily forget to share knowledge with friends, on the spurious grounds that things are different over there. In the end, we all end up endlessly reinventing the same turning wheel. For instance, I learned only the other day that in Sweden it is the chief fire officer, not the chief constable, who takes the lead in co-ordinating the civil protection services. That is an interesting thought, which, like other thoughts and practices from the European Union and elsewhere, we should examine and adapt and adopt if they serve the general purpose of improving our fire and rescue services.
	These are some of the thoughts of a politician who warmly welcomes the strides that Government are making in this area, which is so needy of reform. I have not had time to mention the considerable sums of money that the Government are injecting into the services, to help flavour and favour reform, but I hope that the Government will respond to my thoughts, while especially cocking an ear to the brave men and women who put out dangerous fires and clean up sickening road accidents, a job from which most of us politicians would flee. However, firefighters are wiser than politicians. On their way to help other people, they slide down greasy poles, whereas we, for some unaccountable reason, try to climb up them.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the Minister gave us a very good overview of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill when he opened the debate this afternoon. Many people around the Chamber have welcomed the fact that we have a new Bill before us. However, as my noble friend, Lady Hamwee, said, just because you welcome something, it does not mean that you are not critical of certain points. In response to earlier remarks, on these Benches we have been extremely critical of the Government—most noticeably on the recent planning Bill, through the passing of the Energy Bill and many more.
	There are quite a number of things that we agree on around the Chamber. Most of us agree that it is time we modernise our thoughts on how we run a fire service—given that most of the legislation that we are working on at the moment was introduced in 1947. Communications have changed out of all recognition since 1947, as have all sorts of other modern technologies that the fire services use and that are available in dealing with emergencies. Indeed, the types of emergencies that we have to deal with are very different. There has been a massive increase in the amount of road traffic since 1947, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Harrison, mentioned that. In that regard, I think everybody welcomes the fact that we recognise the role that the fire services have played in dealing with road traffic accidents, and we welcome the fact that that is being regularised.
	Several noble Lords talked about the Bain report, which came about as a result of various problems with the fire services, and I think most people are in broad agreement with the thrust of that report.
	There is also agreement on all sides of the House on the need to continue to reduce the numbers of deaths in fires, despite the figures that the Minister mentioned. The emphasis on fire prevention is important because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, there are still far too many deaths by fire in this country. As other noble Lords said, elderly people are at greater risk, as are certain types of accommodation. That was mentioned in the Select Committee report of another place, and I am sure will be considered as the Bill progresses.
	There has been some discussion of the role of sprinklers and other modern methods of dousing fires. As I understand it from reading the debates in another place, they did not really have enough time to discuss in any detail how we could proceed better on this issue. My colleagues on these Benches and I would like to see more sprinklers available in public buildings, and to look at buildings that have been up for some time. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in particular have an interest in this. We will be considering a housing Bill at some stage, and again, in relation to houses in multiple occupation, this is a big issue. In the last housing Bill, I moved amendments dealing with fire. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, perhaps it is more appropriate to deal with that in the housing Bill, but it is an issue we can look at as the Bill progresses.
	We on these Benches are in total agreement that fire authorities should be able to combine where they wish to, and we also agree that collaboration at regional level is beneficial. However, and the tenor of the debate has backed this up, such moves should not be dictated from the centre; nor should they bypass democratic accountability. We hear a lot from the Government about their desire to decentralise. It seems to me that they do not mind decentralising as long as people are doing what they think is the right thing; when they are not, then the Government always have to have a clause in order to be able to change to what they want to see. That is not true democratic decentralisation.
	Indeed, many noble Lords referred to the centralising nature of much of the Bill, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Turner of Camden, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In every part of the Bill, we find the Government centralising. In Part 1, there is the compulsory creation of combined fire authorities and, as my noble friend said, the power to appoint almost half the members of the new boards. In Part 2, relating to functions, there are directions on fire and emergency, and the same applies to Clauses 16 and 17 on the discharge of functions by others. In Part 3, relating to administration, Clauses 21 to 24 contain a power for the Secretary of State to intervene if an authority is deemed to be failing or likely to fail. As was pointed out, we already have ways of dealing with failing authorities. That is something to which we will need to return in Committee. There is also a power to oblige authorities to use certain facilities or services.
	The area about which, perhaps, most has been said today is Clause 31, which relates to negotiating bodies. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to establish negotiating bodies, including, as others have said, specifying the members and the chair. There is also a power to intervene to establish new negotiating bodies. We all recognise that there have been problems with the differences between retained firefighters and the Fire Brigades Union, but we will have to return to the issue at a later stage.
	As has already been said, the Local Government Association has also been critical of the Government's desire to centralise in their modernisation. Like us, it believes that we must allow for the importance of local accountability and control. Several noble Lords talked about that.
	There are other areas about which there will be further discussion. We touched on the new national framework. How much discretion will be given to local authorities? The Local Government Association has made the case powerfully that local authorities need discretion to set their own targets to take account of differing local needs up and down the country and in areas near to national borders, which was something that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, talked about. I hope that we can have some assurances. I realise that much of the detail will be in secondary legislation, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us on some of those aspects. I realise that some of it is still being consulted on.
	The other area that concerns some of us is cost. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was right to ask whether anybody could point to a reorganisation that had been done for nothing. It is difficult to find one. Obviously, if we can prevent fires in decent quantities and use the modern technology that we have, we will save money. However, the fire authorities are to be given other jobs to do, and there are always set-up costs. The Government may be right to say that, at some stage, the whole operation will be cheaper, but the evidence shows that that is not always the case. Many noble Lords supported that view. There is also the question of charging, which is quite controversial. I am sure that we will return to it.
	Still on the theme of money, the Audit Commission recently examined the progress that had been made in reorganising the fire service. I can give your Lordships one or two quotations from its recent report:
	"All but 2 of the 50 fire authorities in England and Wales are making some progress towards modernisation, as envisaged in the pay and conditions agreements and the White Paper . . . [but] our review indicated that, overall, there has been little progress on overtime, duty systems and part-time working. We noted that demands on managers have been heavy over the past year, a period when they have had to cope with many new initiatives and demanding time frames. These areas will be crucial to the progress of the modernisation of the fire service and it is of concern that so many authorities have not been able to demonstrate progress in these areas".
	It also states:
	"We observed a relatively weak degree of financial planning at many authorities".
	That is a worry for those of us who are concerned about costs. It continues:
	"We saw action plans that had not been costed and had not been built in to the authority's overall planning and related budget projections".
	And yet the Government are confident that they will be able to afford this with no extra money.
	I also received a press release from the employers on the fire service pay deal. They say that,
	"great progress has been made since June last year. . . . We believe that we can sort this out in a matter of weeks. The employers are happy with the principles surrounding the terms and conditions of employment but the detail needs to be worked out and we are quite confident that we can do that at a joint meeting with the FBU in early May".
	Again, that is not completed. If the Government think that the early stages are going to cost nothing, they are mistaken.
	Nobody has talked about the matter of pensions this afternoon. The only person who did mention them was the Minister. The Government think that they have decent proposals on this matter, but some of us are worried about the detail.
	The Bill does not strengthen or help the role of the retained firefighter as much as I would like it to. I come from Berwick-upon-Tweed in Northumberland, where all our firefighters are retained. I hope that we can pursue this matter as the Bill progresses.
	Everyone in the Chamber this afternoon has paid great tribute to the fire service. We have done so on these Benches. They are held in very high esteem, which is why it is so important that we ensure that all the aims that we want to sign up to in this Bill become a reality.
	We support the Bill and will do our best to improve it as we see fit as it passes through Committee stage and other stages in this House.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to wind up this important debate. Before I get down to the details of my speech, I should like to pay tribute to the firefighters in this country, as other noble Lords have done. Tragic scenes of the type recently witnessed in Madrid remind us all of our debt of gratitude to the ordinary men and women who make up our fire services personnel. I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who talked about attending ceremonies of bravery that firemen have participated in. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, that has been a common theme in this Chamber this afternoon.
	This Bill is the final part of a package of measures that make up the Government's response to the Bain report. The Conservative Party welcomes the Government's decision to update the statutory framework in which the fire and rescue services operate, which, as has been noted here today, has changed so little since 1947. In line with that, we have seen here today a general agreement that the overall principle behind the Bill—the need to modernise the fire service—is welcome and surely overdue.
	Various important and related aims and objectives flow from the overarching principle of modernisation. These include placing much more emphasis on fire prevention—something on which we all agree—modernising work practices and putting the saving of lives at the forefront of Government policy. We support those aims wholeheartedly.
	We support the abolition of a prescriptive national response standard and the introduction of local flexibility to match the deployment of resources to locally identified risks. We positively welcome the ending of old-fashioned working practices, discipline procedures and career paths. We support the recognition of the wide-ranging role of the service by the creation of new statutory duties on fire and rescue authorities to perform the many essential rescue and support tasks they have carried out in practice for many years, over and above their obligations under the 1947 Act.
	The problem, as with much of the Bill, as has been highlighted today, is that it goes against the Government's stated aims. I would like to recapitulate why that is clearly the case.
	Throughout the fire dispute, the Government expressed their intention to reduce national prescription and thus allow more local control and flexibility. We have heard that today. But it is evident from today's debate that there is a tremendous amount of centralisation in the Bill. In trying to illustrate the point, one is spoilt for choice—Clauses 2, 10, 22, 31 and 32 stand out particularly as granting the Secretary of State sweeping powers.
	We have heard that Clause 2 gives powers to the Secretary of State to merge existing authorities to create new combined fire authorities and to appoint up to half minus one members to those authorities for the first time, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Maddock, have said. We have also heard about the Secretary of State's new powers to impose negotiating bodies on the fire service, which will have to follow the Secretary of State's guidance. Many Peers commented on that this afternoon.
	The Bill also gives powers to the Secretary of State to acquire, own and operate equipment, which the supposedly independent fire authorities will have to use and purchase. Perhaps most worrying of all, the Bill contains provisions that will enable an unprecedented amount of intervention and micromanagement from Whitehall. I hope the Minister will comment on that. It is completely inappropriate not only in terms of local accountability and democracy but, equally, in terms of best practice and undermining the Government's own drive to increase and improve partnership working.
	I have already sketched a fairly bleak scenario for devolved governance, local accountability and local delivery. It gets worse with the power given to the Secretary of State to impose the national fire and rescue framework. Unscrutinised by Parliament, this document will be exactly the kind of straitjacket that strangles local decision-making. It represents the kind of prescription from on high that we have come to expect from the Government.
	There was an exception, however. This week I spoke in the Second Reading debate of the Children Bill. Afterwards, I had a discussion with the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, in the Corridor. She said that for once the Government had got their relationship with local government right. I wish I could always say that about the ODPM's legislation, but perhaps we might improve it.
	Fire authorities will be required to follow the framework, and their performance will be measured against the extent to which they do that.
	We cannot accept this riding roughshod over local accountability by central control. In order for the Government to push through these changes, they will need the support of local communities and local fire authorities. As many Peers have said, the fire service is a popular service, supported by local communities. It is invariably a bad policy if everyone can be affected by it but very few can exercise influence over it. That is why local accountability and local decision-making work, because fire authorities can respond to the needs of their communities. I thought that that was the point of empowering brigades to tailor the deployment of firefighting capacity to reflect risk to human life.
	It is odd indeed that, at the same time as they are abolishing national response standards, which we support, the Government are introducing a regime that seems to allow them to control directly from Whitehall the organisation, structure, employment practices, collaboration arrangements, procurement, training and human resources policies of every fire and rescue authority in the country. Perhaps the Minister can give us an explanation.
	In his introductory remarks, the Minister denied the regionalisation of the fire service by stealth, but we must look at the philosophy behind the regionalisation of this agenda. The ODPM has already gone beyond the Bain report, which recommended co-operation between brigades rather than a reorganisation on a regional structure.
	The Government may marshal the earlier Mott MacDonald report to justify their attempt to regionalise the fire service, but nowhere does that report claim that the existing regions with government offices are operationally the most appropriate regions for organisation of the fire and rescue service.
	I have had briefings from various organisations, including the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, the County Councils Network of Chief Fire Officers, the Fire Brigades Union and the Local Government Association. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, they have expressed serious reservations about the proposals for regional functions. They emphasise that no business case has been made for the introduction of regional management boards and that no alternatives have been properly investigated. They have legitimate concerns that the pooling of resources may be pushed through at the expense of diminishing levels of service or delivery at point of need.
	Certainly there is a risk that potential regionalisation will prove to be a burden that distracts from the really important task of delivering the integrated risk management plans. Those organisations have drawn my attention also to the lack of consultation with firefighters' associations and fire authorities on how and why the regional changes are to be implemented. The County Councils Network of Chief Fire Officers has stated:
	"Simply stating that a Fire Authority which has fewer than 700 people is inefficient without supplying any argument to support this, verges finely between simplistic and arrogant. We can easily furnish evidence that smaller Authorities, many of which are linked to County Councils outperform much larger fire brigades, frequently at a significantly lower expense".
	No serious attempt has been made to review the geographical boundaries that are most appropriate for the delivery of anti-terrorism responses and civil contingencies. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when she mentioned the connections between this Bill and the Civil Contingencies Bill. That being the case, why are the Government contemplating such a radical restructuring that could see someone reporting a fire in Lowestoft to a Watford control room?
	I mention my own county frequently, but Essex has little in connection with Peterborough or north Norfolk. For anti-terrorism measures, we are part of London. If there is a problem in London, Essex is at the forefront. Peterborough and north Norfolk are not, so why do we have to be in an eastern region? We need to be with London or Kent to solve those problems. The sooner the Minister looks at the boundary, the sooner he might stop hearing speeches from me.
	Not only is community safety being subordinated to the political agenda of the Deputy Prime Minister, but there is an unrealistic assumption that the technology on which many of the changes rely will somehow work. That is rare in my experience. We all know that there are days when we arrive in the office first thing in the morning and the PC just does not work. A lot of the reorganisation is based totally on technology. The control rooms for vast areas of the country rely on it. That is of concern.
	I shall not dwell any longer on my concerns about regionalisation. I think that most noble Lords are fed up with it, but it is an important issue and I hope that the Minister will comment on it. However, as the leader of a large local authority, I am disappointed at having once again to counsel government against taking powers and accountability away from local people and moving them upwards to a more remote, less accountable tier of government. I am all the more disappointed that it is being done in such a prescriptive and hasty manner, with little consultation on or piloting of the various reforms proposed.
	As several noble Lords have said, we need to be concerned about the financial implications of the legislation. The Government have promised £30 million of transitional funding for the pay award, but firefighters will have to pay that back from savings generated through the integrated risk management process. It remains difficult to be sure whether those savings will be realised. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and several other noble Lords have expressed concern about the potential lack of resources to pay for the changes.
	Some noble Lords have mentioned the problem of pensions. I think the pensions provision in this legislation is inadequate. Having been involved in local government for many years, I know that fire brigade pensions have been a real problem for the finances of fire authorities. I would like to have seen the Government accept the recommendations of the Bain report on pensions, rather than put forward their own proposals, and would like the Minister to comment on why the Government did that instead.
	On the issue of performance monitoring, we do not believe that the draft fire and rescue national framework is sufficiently specific to allow the Audit Commission to set a framework for monitoring the performance of fire authorities. The Government should bring forward some further thinking to guide the Audit Commission's performance monitoring.
	There has been a lot of discussion about charging this afternoon. Several noble Lords have commented on that. In most fire authorities, there is now charging for discretionary services. I think that is appropriate. I would certainly like further guidance from the Minister on his views on charging—he reacted very fiercely to my noble friend Lady Hanham's comment on it. I am sure we can discuss charging at length in Committee. There probably does need to be charging for discretionary services, and we would like to be clear what the Government's views are on that. I think that the discretionary charging system has been particularly successful in the fire authority in Essex, and we have been working on that.
	There is also the wider debate about Government policy that is inseparable from our scrutiny of this Bill. I would like to know whether the Minister expects that this Bill will save lives. We are surprised that, at the same time as introducing this legislation, the Government have pushed back their target of achieving a 20 per cent reduction in accidental fire deaths in the home from March 2004 to March 2010. The target of cutting the incidence of deliberately started fires by 30 per cent by 2009 has been downgraded to 10 per cent by 2010. Why have these targets been downgraded?
	Several noble Lords have commented this afternoon on sprinklers and other measures to help with fire systems. We need to think about new schools and, as people have said, homes for the elderly should probably have sprinklers installed when they are constructed. I am sure we are going to be discussing that in Committee.
	In conclusion, although we support the aims of the Bill, it is flawed because, instead of empowering fire authorities to face new operational challenges, it has hamstrung them by undertaking reform through the erroneous twin prisms of centralisation and regionalisation.
	We have covered a lot of ground today. Some issues have been raised which will need to be returned to in Committee. I am sure other issues will emerge as we get through the detail. My noble friend Lady Hanham and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this in Committee, and we hope to amend parts of the legislation that we are not so happy with. I thank everyone this afternoon for the opportunity to speak to this Second Reading.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken, and for their positive contributions. I do not think I am stepping out of line by saying that we are on Second Reading, not in Committee, and that when I sit down the building can close. Therefore, everyone will be hanging on my every word. First of all, I want to reinforce what I said in opening the debate, because it is what everyone else has said. I pay tribute to the work of the firefighters. There is no doubt about it, the firefighters in this country—both retained and full time—are the aristocracy of the emergency services. There is no question about that, and I do not think that we need to have it qualified in any way whatever.
	I want to draw attention to one other thing because no one has mentioned it at all, mainly because it is good news—the report of your Lordship's Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. Normally, when that is bad news for the Government, everyone mentions it. The committee said in the conclusion of its report, published yesterday, that there was nothing in the delegated powers in the Bill to which it wished to draw the attention of the House. Therefore, I do not believe that I need to spend too much time on some of the nonsense that I have heard this afternoon about the overweening powers in the Bill. If there were a real serious problem, that important committee would have highlighted it and drawn attention to the fact that amendments were required.
	That is all that I am going to say about that matter. I have no doubt that we shall come back to it in Committee. Quite clearly, no one had had time to read the committee's report—that is the best interpretation I can put on it.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, as a member of that committee, can I say that I did not draw the Minister's or the House's attention to that matter because, indeed, we concluded as the Minister described?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that. I can assure him that, from my short experience in this House, the Government have to deliver on what that very important committee says. Usually it will point out where the Government have got it wrong—and, by and large, that is what has happened, and we have adjusted things.
	At the outset, I should say that I am really glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, mentioned Essex and charging in the same context, because it means that I cannot be accused of raising the matter myself. I can tell the noble Lord that I am looking forward to Grand Committee and to learning all about Essex and charging in the fire service. I am looking forward to hearing about the squillions that they have been raising, and I would like to know the mechanism and arrangements that they have for raising those substantial sums of money. In that way, perhaps we can share it with colleagues and other authorities and see whether it is all hunky-dory, if I can put it that way. Obviously, there are entrepreneurs in Essex, and we need to know more about them.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but I was warned by a chief officer about providing too much ammunition about what he had been doing through discretionary charging in that county council. Obviously one is quite willing to share information about the Essex fire brigade at Committee stage.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the fire brigade that I am referring to. Obviously, it is doing an excellent job fighting fires and an excellent job raising funds. We would like to learn more about that during Grand Committee.
	I shall try to answer some of the points that noble Lords made, but not all of them, as that would take far too long. Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 meant that the Secretary of State had to approve every change or reduction in manpower or equipment in the fire authority. It was ludicrous to expect him to do that. The repeal of the section means that those matters are now, rightly, dealt with locally. Fire authorities are expected to produce and consult on the integrated risk management plans, which are locally produced and which set out the local standards of any purpose that they follow. There is nothing in this Bill that changes that. The "last resort" powers in the Bill do not undermine the significant new freedoms given to authorities as a result of the repeal of Section 19. There is no contradiction there.
	All the points that were raised were important, and I do not want to demean any of them, but I cannot deal with them all. However, I would like to get out of the way first the point about which legislation takes precedence. Section (1)(b) of the Fire Services Act 2003 will stay in force until repealed by this Bill, if it is enacted. It will then be replaced by Clause 29. Section (1)(a) of the 2003 Act will stay on the statute book until it falls at the sunset clause in November 2005. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
	The Business and Community Safety Forum—the BCSF—represents users of the fire and rescue services, such as business, the fire protection industry, wider community interests, the Disability Rights Commission, Help the Aged and RoSPA. Those bodies are among the nominating members. The Practitioners Forum includes the Fire Brigades Union, the Local Government Association and the Chief and Assistant Fire Officers Association.
	The other point, for the avoidance of any doubt, is that best value does apply to fire and rescue authorities.
	Another issue related to the different definitions of emergency in this Bill and the Civil Contingencies Bill. The Civil Contingencies Bill deals with much wider emergencies than this Bill. For example, the fire and rescue service has no role in preventing terrorist incidents. It has a role in responding to them, but not in preventing them. The police service does have a role in preventing them. There is no contradiction in the definition, it is just wider. It does not cause a problem to any of the services.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the well-being power. Her concern about additional power is welcome, but she argued that the combined fire and rescue authorities need the power of well-being. We think that the powers in Clauses Nos. 5, 11 and 12 give sufficient discretion to allow combined fire and rescue authorities to discharge their functions. We have received no robust examples that demonstrate where the new powers would fall short but we would be very happy to be informed of any during the course of the passage of the Bill. That is what this House is for: to revise and scrutinise the legislation sent by the other place.
	The role of the service improvement team at the ODPM was criticised by implication. The White Paper made it clear that the service improvement team would be part of the ODPM: I draw attention to paragraph 5(10). The Bain review said that central government should provide more effective leadership and so we are satisfied that that is where that role should lie. I shall not go into detail as it is set out in the White Paper. We can come to it in Committee if it is required.
	On the issue of recruitment, the ODPM is leading a project to improve recruitment methods in the fire and rescue service. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to be fair to all applicants and to attract a more diverse set of applicants.
	A question was asked about what happens if an emergency occurs for which there is no time to make an order under Clause 9. Clause 9 will be used to place a duty on fire and rescue authorities to deal with emergencies such as chemical spills or major flooding. Any emergency that occurs for which there is no time to make an order under Clause 9 will be covered by the Secretary of State's power to direct fire and rescue authorities under Clause 10. Again, we can explore the power of the Secretary of State in Committee.
	On the exclusion of employee representatives, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council was less representative of employees than the new practitioners forum. The latter includes Unison, which was not a member of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, and Networking Women in the Fire Service. This is in addition to the Fire Brigades Union and the Retained Firefighters Union. There is an issue there. We are not in favour of the exclusion of employee representatives but if we talk about only the FBU then we are excluding other representatives.
	With respect to the consultation on Clause 22 powers, we have said that although the powers exist, we do not want to use them. If we do, we shall use them, as I mentioned in my opening speech, in accordance with the intervention protocol agreed with the Local Government Association. This would mean consulting the fire and rescue authorities involved. It is not simply that a diktat would come from the Secretary of State without any warning late one Friday afternoon. There is a consultation protocol that we will use.
	Regarding the issue of the chair of the body, as raised by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, it will be independent. That is under challenge, but it is the ODPM's current practice to comply with the principles set out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. We would expect to apply those principles if an appointment were to be made in this instance. We can explore this in greater detail in Committee but there is no doubt about it; there is a procedure. It is not just acting on a whim and appointing one's chum. Those days belong to other governments, not to this Government.
	The other issue raised by my noble friend was whether the Government would use the powers to derecognise the Fire Brigades Union. The noble Lord is right to pose the question if he wants to but it beggars belief that it needs asking. The answer is, "No". He actually said, "Will the Government use the powers to derecognise the Fire Brigades Union and replace it with the Retained Firefighters Union"? The answer is, "No". We recognise that there are a number of unions representing fire and rescue service employees but at present the Fire Brigades Union is the only union represented on the national joint council. We believe that the new negotiation body should be opened up to representatives of the Retained Firefighters Union and the Fire Officers' Association as well as the Fire Brigades Union.

Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if the Minister will give way, I should like to clear up the matter. It seems to me that the Minister is saying that the clause is not intended to affect the negotiating powers of the Fire Brigades Union. Therefore, although there will be another union alongside—they claim to represent the part-time fire workers as much as the full-time ones—and although they will have to share with another union, that will not affect the negotiating powers. Is that was he is saying?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, I am saying exactly what I have just said and it is a matter of record in Hansard. I do not want to repeat it because I am already going over the time that I told my two noble friends sitting either side of me that I would take. We will have plenty of time in Committee for such matters. On whether we shall derecognise one union to recognise another, the answer is no.
	Much was said about funding, but I shall not go over that, although the notes that I have are extensive. Most of what I heard about funding is erroneous. The idea that we are trying to do this on the cheap, and that no funding has been put in, is erroneous. Frankly, the money that the Government have pumped in to fund the changes in the fire service is a matter of public record. In Grand Committee, I shall explain what the pots of money have covered.
	I realise that there were difficulties as regards the dispute last time round, in terms of how the changes will take place and how the savings from those changes will be deployed. The idea that the Government have put no money into the fire and rescue services, over and above that that had already gone in from the council tax, is simply not true. I shall not answer the detailed challenges now because that would be unfair as I could not do justice to the issues that have been raised.
	The framework allows local discretion. The whole point about the integrated risk management plan is that it will allow authorities to plan on the basis of their local needs as opposed to mandatory, prescribed targets. There is also scope for local fire and rescue authorities to set different and more challenging targets for themselves. The Government would welcome that. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, "Keep the nanny government away from us, get out of the way, we know best", and when we set them free, say, "By the way, you can set even more challenging targets". Why can they not set the targets? They are free to do that and we would welcome it.
	The issue of sprinklers has been raised. I cannot do justice to that now. The Bill is not a suitable vehicle for that point. We think that it would be better to do that through building regulations. Nevertheless, we can explore the matter in Grand Committee. I came to the House in 2001 or 2002, having come from the Yarlswood fire near Bedford—a brand new building that was built without sprinklers—and there is a similar building with exactly the same type of construction here in London, in Harmondsworth. Two fire brigades were giving totally different written advice about whether sprinklers should be put in when the buildings were constructed. There are some issues to be raised, but by and large we believe that that is a matter for building regulations.
	On the issue of cover, I shall put a couple of statistics on the record. My noble friend Lord Harrison spoke of the different numbers of people in the City during the day compared with the night. Many noble Lords raised that matter. The City of London is a good example. At the moment the fire brigade provides the same level of cover during the day and during the night and yet during the day there are 500,000 people working in the City and at night only 5,000 live there. In a modern risk-based system, one does not need the same amount of cover when the risk has clearly moved to the suburbs. There are twice the number of primary fires at three or four in the afternoon—about 10,000 each year—as there are at three or four in the morning—about 5,000 each year. To put a blanket figure on the matter, saying that that is what must happen 24 hours a day, does not make sense with the resources that we have. There is scope for efficiencies, as my noble friend Lord Harrison said.
	On devolution, we do not see any problem. Devolution will not be a barrier between England and Wales nor between England and Scotland. We expect co-operation across the border to continue, as it does now. I have been given no serious evidence to suggest that it is an issue. The other place fully scrutinised the Bill and debated many of the issues, many of which, such as sprinklers, are not in the Bill.
	On the current negotiations, one should not speak from the Dispatch Box when negotiations are continuing about a settlement in what was an acrimonious dispute. There is remaining optimism that the issues will be negotiated and will shortly be resolved satisfactorily.
	The Audit Commission's verification findings were raised. It will undertake a second stage of the study and will report in the summer. The Audit Commission has said that it will be important that progress has been made by then on issues such as overtime and shift patterns. The Government Offices for the Regions are the established bases for the delivery of key government functions, including the new expanded role of the fire and rescue services and civil contingency planning.
	I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that we have not invented the Government Offices, nor the government regions. We inherited them from the previous government. There may be arguments about which counties are in which region. We do not accept that the framework is a straitjacket. It is not a blueprint. The flexibility is there for the local fire authorities. They have been consulted widely on the framework and we are currently considering responses from the key stakeholders.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the framework is encased in primary legislation and there is no delegated legislation within it and that is why the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee decided that there was no reason to make any recommendations?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in that case we do not have a problem. I have not been able to answer all the points made and I did not set out to do so; it would have been unfair and time consuming, bearing in mind that we will have an interesting Grand Committee. It is not for me to say this; it is up to others, but I hope that the Grand Committee will concentrate on the meat of the Bill, which is all of it, and not re-examine the legislation from last year. Part and parcel of that is the obvious reason that negotiations are still going on for a solution to the arrangements brought about at the end of the dispute. This is a new vision after 50 years to replace the existing fire legislation.
	Firefighters, full-time and retained, are the aristocracy of the emergency services. We should treat them with that respect when we consider the legislation. I beg to move.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.
	House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before six o'clock to Monday, 19 April at half-past two o'clock.